Full text of "The temples of the Jews and the other buildings in the Haram area at Jerusalem"

See other formats

-a-a-a-9-9-9-

PSQ BOB

S. iaaaaaa.

OF THE

Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2016

https://archive.org/details/templesofjewsothOOferg

Frontispiece

PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF HEROD’S TEIY1PLE AS RESTORED.

THE

TEMPLES OF THE JEWS

AND THE

OTHEB BUILDINGS IN THE HAEAM AEEA

JERUSALEM.

JAMES FERGUSSON, ESQ., D.C.L., F.E.S., Y.P.E.A.S.

HON. MEM. R.S.L. ETC.

The Tabernacle of Moses.

LONDON:

JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.

1878.

The right of Translation is reserved.

'T' C it j

yf 78rA i

[ /ini l lA.

) U-

■ .

HARVARD
UNiVERSI i >
LIBRARY

WORKS BY THE SAME AUTHOR.

AN ESSAY ON THE ANCIENT TOPOGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM ; with

Restored Plans of the Temple, and with Plans, Sections, and Details of the Church built by Constantine
the Great over the Holy Sepulchre, now known as the Mosque of Omar. 16s. Weale, 1847.

THE HOLY SEPULCHRE AND THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM. Being the

Substance of Two Lectures delivered in the Royal Institution, Albemarle Street, on the 21st February,
1862, and 3rd March, 1865. Woodcuts. 8vo. 7s. 6 d. London, Murray, 1865.

ILLUSTRATIONS OF THE ROCK-CUT TEMPLES OF INDIA. 18 Plates in

Tinted Lithography, folio ; with an 8vo. volume of Texts, Plans, &c. 21. 7 s. 6 d. London, Weale, 1845.

PICTURESQUE ILLUSTRATIONS OF ANCIENT ARCHITECTURE IN HIN-

DOSTAN. 24 Plates in Coloured Lithography, with Plans, Woodcuts, and Explanatory Text, & c. 41. 4s.
London, Hogarth, 1847.

AN HISTORICAL INQUIRY INTO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF BEAUTY IN

ART, more especially with reference to Architecture. Royal 8vo. 31s. 6 d. London, Longmans, 1849.

THE PALACES OF NINEVEH AND PERSEPOLIS RESTORED : An Essay on

Ancient Assyrian and Persian Architecture. 8vo. 16s. London, Murray, 1851.

THE ILLUSTRATED HANDBOOK OF ARCHITECTURE. Being a Concise

and Popular Account of the Different Styles prevailing in all Ages and all Countries. With 850 Illus-
trations. 8vo. 26s. London, Murray, 1859.

HISTORY OF ARCHITECTURE IN ALL COUNTRIES FROM THE EARLIEST

TIMES TO THE PRESENT DAY. In Four Volumes, 8vo., viz. : —

HISTORY OF ANCIENT AND MEDIAEVAL ARCHITECTURE. Two Vols. 63s.

Second Edition. Loudon, Murray, 1874.

HISTORY OF INDIAN AND EASTERN ARCHITECTURE. One Vol. New Edition.

42S. 1876.

HISTORY OF THE MODERN STYLES OF ARCHITECTURE. One Vol. 31s. 6d. 1874.
RUDE-STONE MONUMENTS IN ALL COUNTRIES, THEIR AGE AND

USES. With 234 Illustrations. 8vo. London, Murray, 1872.

TREE AND SERPENT WORSHIP, or ILLUSTRATIONS OF MYTHOLOGY

AND ART IN INDIA, in the 1st and 4th Centuries after Christ. 100 Plates and 31 Woodcuts. 4to.
London, India Office; and W. H. Allen & Co. 2nd Edition, 1873.

THE MAUSOLEUM AT HALICARNASSUS RESTORED, IN CONFORMITY

WITH THE REMAINS RECENTLY DISCOVERED. Plates. 4to. 7s. 6d. London, Murray, 1862.

AN ESSAY ON A PROPOSED NEW SYSTEM OF FORTIFICATION, with

Hints for its Application to our National Defences. 12s. 6 d. London, Weale, 1849.

THE PERIL OF PORTSMOUTH. French Fleets and English Forts. Plan.

8vo. 3s. London, Murray, 1853.

OBSERVATIONS ON THE BRITISH MUSEUM, NATIONAL GALLERY, and

NATIONAL RECORD OFFICE ; with Suggestions for their Improvement. 8vo. London, Weale, 1859.

LONDON: PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

PREFACE.

More than thirty years have now elapsed since I obtained access to the plans and
drawing’s made in 1833 by Messrs. Catherwood and Arnndale, in the Haram
area at Jerusalem. The circumstances under which I first saw these drawing’s,
and afterwards became possessed of them, need not be repeated here, as they have
already been narrated at length in the preface to my work on the ‘Ancient
Topography of Jerusalem,’1 which was the result of their acquisition, and after-
wards, more briefly, in a little work on ‘ The Holy Sepulchre and the Temple
at Jerusalem,’ published in 1865.

Even at that time, it required only a very cursory inspection of these
drawings to enable me to see at once that the so-called Mosque of Omar bad not
been built by that Khalif, nor indeed by any Saracenic architect, but was
undoubtedly a building of the age of Constantine ; and the conclusion seemed
inevitable that, with the Golden Gateway, it formed a part of the group of
buildings erected by that Emperor, in the early part of the fourth century, around
the cave which he believed to have contained the Sepulchre of Christ. Since
that time I have had repeated occasions to go carefully over the architectural
history of that age, and have heard numerous criticisms on the views I then
expressed, but nothing that has, in the smallest degree, shaken my confidence in
the conclusions I then arrived at, or in the perfect trustworthiness of the data
from which these results were obtained.

At the time of making this discovery and announcing it to the world, I
had not the most remote idea that I was doing anything which required special
knowledge, or for which I deserved any particular credit. I saw, at a glance, of
what paramount importance to the Christian topography of Jerusalem it was, that
the real site of Constantine’s buildings should be discovered, and felt perhaps more
than most people the interest this knowledge possessed for the general history of
architecture. Beyond this, however, I could only consider myself as fortunate in
accidentally finding a treasure that had long been hidden, and in being the first

1 An Essay on the Ancient Topography of Jerusalem ;
with restored Plans of the Temple, and with Plans,
Sections, and Details of the Church built by Constantine

the Great over the Holy Sepulchre, now known as the
Mosque of Omar. Royal 8vo. John Weale, High
Holborn, 1847.

PREFACE.

to publish it to the world. My idea then was, that it would have been known
ages ago, had it not been for the jealous exclusion of Christians from the
Haram area since the time of the Crusades, and because no intelligent foreigner
had seen the interior of the Dome of the Dock since the Middle Ages. Now,
however, that the veil had been drawn aside, and its form and details revealed
to the world, I felt convinced that nine educated men out of ten would see at
once what I had seen, and my only anxiety was, that no one should have access
to the drawings in the engraver’s hands, or hear the fact announced, before I
had the somewhat selfish gratification of publishing it to the world.

The result, it need hardly be added, differed most widely from these
anticipations. No one saw the facts in the same light in which I saw them, and
the conclusions which I had drawn from them were consequently looked upon
as idle dreams, and their author treated with very scant courtesy, I felt myself,
in fact, in the position of a man who had accidentally acquired a knowledge
of a dead language of which the rest of his countrymen were ignorant, and
who, being asked to interpret an important inscription written in that tongue,
had given a translation which was unexpected by all, and singularly distasteful
to a few, who unfortunately were deeply interested in discrediting both the inter-
pretation and its author.

I was of course well aware that, since the revival of Gothic art became a
mania, the study of classical art and architecture had been sadly neglected in this
country ; but I was not prepared for such complete ignorance as I found prevailing
on the subject. Even if its details were unknown, I expected that the principles of
architectural criticism had been so well established by the study of the mediaeval
styles that all would admit and understand their application to all other phases
of art. In this country, since the publication of Rickman's ‘ Attempt to
discriminate the Styles of Architecture in England,’ published in 1817, the
progress of the science has been so rapid that now any well educated school-girl,
on entering one of our cathedrals, at once points to the round arches of the nave
as fixing its date within the first century after the Conquest. She discriminates
between the early lancet style and the geometric or decorative tracery of the
Edwards, and makes no mistake in distinguishing between the early perpendicular
and the Tudor styles that succeeded these. All this is so well known and so
certainly fixed that, were all the books and records of the three kingdoms
destroyed, there are hundreds, probably thousands, in this country who could by
simple inspection fix the age of any part of any of our great churches within
twenty or at the outside within fifty years with absolute certainty, and no one
would dispute the conclusions so arrived at.

It was not so, however, in the last century, when the greater number of our
great county histories were compiled. Then the industrious compiler, when he
found in the chronicle of some lying monk, that the enemies of God had harried
the convent, and burnt and destroyed the church — “ usque ad solum diruta ” —

PREFACE.

noted it down as a fact, and equally believed that it had been rebuilt in the next
few years by some abbot or prior without money or means of any sort. It never
occurred to him to go to the church itself, and see whether the walls and vaults
of the pious Norman founder might not yet be standing, and if he had gone, it is
very probable he would not have been much the wiser. The existence of the
certain gradation of styles was not then suspected, and is in fact the great discovery
of this century in that class of literature. Now, however, any man who would
state that Henry YII.’s Chapel was built by Edward the Confessor, though a
considerable amount of documentary evidence could be brought forward to prove
it, would be simply laughed at. Or if any one would assert that the chapel
in the White Tower of the Tower of London and Henry VII. ’s Chapel were
built by the same king — they are not dissimilar in plan — would not be laughed
at, simply because the idea would be thought to be too absurd and stupid. This
all will probably admit ; but the disappointing part of the matter is, that, while
acknowledging the conquests of this science as regards English art, even the best-
educated men fail to perceive its application to all other true styles.

The causes are, however, sufficiently obvious which prevent this mode of
reasoning from being generally appreciated in this country. Any one who looks
around him cannot fail to see buildings in the Grecian, Roman, and Italian styles
rising simultaneously, mixed up with others in all the one hundred and one
varieties of Mediaeval Architecture, and, unless he has seen and thought much
on the subject, will have no reason for doubting that what happens everywhere
at the present day may always have been the normal state of matters. He
consequently brushes aside all reasoning based on data which he considers
contradicted by his own daily experience, and smiles incredulously at the
simplicity of those who, he thinks, rely on something they consider more
important than the testimony of their own eyes ! Few, consequently, realise the
fact that these imitative — or, as I used to call them, monkey — styles are wholly
the invention of the centuries that have elapsed since the Reformation in Europe,
and that absolutely no trace of them is found before that event in the West, nor
to the present day in the East, wherever the example of Europe has not obliterated
the true styles of the land. In all other countries and ages, the progressive
evolution of forms in works of art is as certain as in the works of nature, and
may be reasoned upon in the same manner and with the same certainty. So far
as I know, there is absolutely no exception to this rule, and when once the dis-
tinction between the old and new systems is fairly grasped, a new domain is
added to the realms of science of the utmost value to our knowledge of the past,
and of especial importance towards obtaining a solution of problems such as
those treated of in this volume.

From all this it follows, as an inevitable corollary, that wherever sufficient
remains exist of the original architecture of any building to enable its affinities
with others of the same class to be ascertained with accuracy, its age can always

PEEFACE.

be determined with more ease and certainty from this than from any other class
of evidence, either written or traditional, that can be applied to any such
investigations. So, at least, I have found it in every part of the world where
I have been, or regarding which I have any accurate knowledge ; and so I
believe all will find who will follow up the study of architectural art, not only
in its technical forms but through all the various historical and more scientific
phases which form its real value for our present purpose.

So far, however, are these principles from being considered as applicable
to buildings in Palestine that no one hesitates in asserting, and others from
believing, that the Dome of the Rock and the mosque El Aksa are buildings of the
same age, and erected by the same Khalif, though in reality the difference of age
and style is about the same as that between the chapel in the White Tower and
the Westminster tomb. They look steadily at the two woodcuts Nos. 55 and 56,
and see no difference in styles ; nor do they detect any improbability in the two
capitals, Nos. 78 and 79, being made at the same time and for the same building.
They see nothing that is classical in the Dome of the Rock, and though they
do not quite say so, they see nothing improbable in the assumption, that it was
built by the Moslems in the seventh century, nor as a necessary consequence
that the Golden Gateway must also be a Saracenic building of the same age.
If Englishmen at the present day were as familiar with the architecture of the
Byzantine empire during the four centuries that elapsed between the time of
Constantine and that of Abd-el-Malek as they are with that of the four centuries
that counted between the Conquest and the Reformation, the questions regarding
the relative age of these two buildings would have been answered as soon as
asked, and whether in the negative or affirmative, the decision would never have
been questioned. Any doubts that still hang over the controversy are wholly
owing to the fact that those with whom the decision rests fail to appreciate
the evidence on which it must be based.

In like manner the historians of the holy places have benefited as little by
our recently acquired scientific processes as the archaeologists. They look
into their written histories, and find that the Persian king Cliosroes not only
plundered, but burnt and destroyed — levelled with the ground — the churches
of Constantine and Justinian, and that a monk, Modestus, without money or
means, in a time of the deepest depression of the Church of Jerusalem, rebuilt and
restored to their original splendour, in a very short time, what it had taken all
the power and all the wealth of these great Emperors to accomplish during many
years of continuous prosperity. It never seems to occur to any of them that
before giving credence to this apocryphal tale, resting only on the slightest
evidence, it is first necessary to ascertain whether the architecture of any of the
buildings so said to have been destroyed is of an age anterior to the Persian
conquest. If this indispensable examination were really made, it would be found
that the Dome of the Rock still retains much of the architecture of the age of

PREFACE.

Vll

Constantine still perfect and unaltered. There are mosaics there, some of which,
at least, are parts of the original decoration of a building of that age, which
would certainly have peeled off if ever exposed to fire. Numerous columns will
be found there of precious marbles which would have calcined to dust in the
heat of a conflagration, but which retain their original polish. What may have
happened to the Basilica of Constantine, we cannot tell, for a worse tyrant than
Chosroes, four centuries afterwards, did utterly destroy that noble building, and
the church of Justinian has also perished ; but we can confidently assert that he
left no trace of his violence on the structure of the Dome of the Rock, or on the
Golden Gateway, which remain to the present day, very nearly as Constantine
left them. In any other place than Jerusalem this would be considered final,
and, so far as I am capable of forming an opinion, is so, notwithstanding all
that has been urged against it during the last thirty years.

Had the Haram been situated in England, or in any part of Western
Europe, the age of its buildings would have been ascertained long ago, by the
same processes, and with the same certainty, as those of any mediaeval building
that exists, and no one would have disputed the determination so arrived at.
If indeed there had been even a dozen persons in this country who were
sufficiently familiar with the Romano-Byzantine style, to be capable of formulating
an opinion regarding it, and had leisure to look at the evidence, this controversy
never could have arisen. Either they would have agreed in the correctness of
my views, and the general public would have followed their lead, or, if they had
decided against them, and given their reasons for so doing, which they could
easily have done, the matter would have been settled long ago, and I would have
been too happy to withdraw from a controversy in which, even if right, neither
fame nor profit is to be obtained.

During the many years that have elapsed since the publication of my work,
I have known only one person in this country — the late Professor Willis, of
Cambridge — who was qualified both by his knowledge of architecture and of the
authorities to give a decided opinion on the subject. He, however, had committed
himself publicly to the authenticity of the Sepulchre in the town, before my
theory was published, and it would be demanding a little too much from human
nature to ask any one in his position to confess the error of his ways and to
admit the success of a rival. The late Mr. Lewin was another formidable opponent.
He, however, knew nothing of architecture, and was familiar only with the
classical branch of the literature of the subject; so that it is hardly to be wondered
at that he missed the point of the argument. On the other hand, Count de
Vogue knows both the art and the literature of the subject; and if it be not
that his opinions are biassed by sincere devotion to his infallible church, his
reasoning on the subject is to me a mystery I cannot pretend to fathom.1 Besides

1 See Appendix V.

Vlll

PREFACE.

these three, I could name some four or five persons whose knowledge of art is
sufficient to enable them to judge if they would take the trouble of looking into
the special evidence bearing on the question. They have not, however, so far as
I know, done so, and, wisely perhaps, decline to mix themselves up with a
controversy where matters of faith are allowed at times to supersede the processes
of pure reason. In so far as my own personal experience goes, I have met no
one during these thirty years able or willing to discuss the matter, while if there
is any one in this country, who has taken the trouble to master the subject, in all
its bearings, I can only express my regret that I am not acquainted with his
name. Such controversies as have taken place in periodicals have generally
hinged on some collateral points. No one, so far as I know, has, in print at least
grasped the really vital points at issue and tried to argue either for or against
them. If the Dome of the Rock and the Golden Gateway were not built by
Constantine, they were built by some one else, and if it can be shown who that
person was, and at what age, it is no use going further ; no ingenuity, nor any
special pleading, can get over that fact. It is a mere waste of time to attempt to
carry the argument further. If, on the contrary, it is determined that Constantine
did erect these two buildings, it is of the least possible consequence what
Eusebius, or the Bordeaux Pilgrim, or any one, wrote or said about the matter.
If anything in their works seems to contradict this ascertained fact, all that need
be said is, that the author was ignorant, or the passage corrupt, or that he had
been misunderstood or mistranslated. So confident did I feel that this was the
case that, when I wrote my first work on the 4 Ancient Topography of Jerusalem,’
I was perhaps too careless in meeting objections by anticipation. I knew that,
if I were correct in my architectural determinations, all difficulties in accepting
Constantine as the builder of the Dome of the Rock must disappear as a matter
of course when fairly grappled with. It was a mere question of time, and so
it has turned out. Professor Willis’ fatal objection, so fiercely endorsed by Dr.
Robinson, to the effect that it was impossible the Golden Gateway could be centred
on a broad agora, has been proved by Captain Warren’s discoveries to be a delu-
sion. Mr. Lewin’s fatal objection, that the Basilica was due east of the Sepulchre,
turns out to be a mistranslation, and the Count de Yoglie’s famous inscription,
which proved that the Dome of the Rock was erected by Abd-el-Malek, is now
shown to be a forgery. As I expected, one by one, all these objections have
disappeared ; and if there is any difficulty remaining unanswered, it must be very
insignificant, for it has escaped my attention, and, when brought forward, will,
I have no doubt, be as easily answered as the others. If the architectural
determination is right, it cannot long survive.

Even without the architecture, I believe that, if any one would carefully
go through the whole of the written evidence, he could almost settle the
controversy from that alone ; I do not, however, know any man in this country
who has attempted this, except Mr. Alexander M‘Grigor, of Glasgow. He has

PREFACE.

not only examined the whole, but has printed references to all the passages
bearing on the subject in an alphabetical form, in a quarto volume of ninety
closely printed pages, at present only for private circulation. If it were published
together with the work for which it was intended, this compilation should serve
as a substructure ; few, I believe, could resist arriving at the same conclusion as
the author, who, I believe, without any special knowledge of the architecture,
is quite convinced that the Dome of the Rock was erected by Constantine
the Great.

Just before my attention was first turned to the topography of Jerusalem,
the celebrated Dr. Robinson of New York had, in the second volume of his
‘ Biblical Researches,’ carefully summed up the evidence regarding the
authenticity of the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and after a most
exhaustive enquiry decided that it could not be on or near the spot where the
scenes of the Passion were enacted. In stating this, he was only following up
conclusions that Korte had arrived at in the early part of the last century, and
what, in fact, all travellers who trust to reason, and reason only, must agree to,
for it has been found impossible to reconcile the position in the middle of the
town with the narratives of events as recorded by the Evangelists. Those who
oppose this view rely on tradition, and on that only. They assume, in the first
place, that Constantine must have known where the place of Crucifixion really
was, which he probably did, and to that no one will object ; but their second
assumption, that the church in the town must be the true one, because it is the
one which he built, rests on a totally different basis ; they plead, however, that,
at all events, it is a tradition with a respectable antiquity of fifteen centuries, and
is, in consequence, worth more than the negative void left by the logic of the
American doctor. Under these circumstances, I believed that he, at least, and
all those who doubted the authenticity of the present church, must hail with
enthusiasm the news that an alternative had been found, which, at all events, had
the merit of reconciling the narratives of the Bible with the localities of Jerusalem
in their minutest peculiarities. As in everything else connected with the reception
of my publication, I found myself entirely mistaken. Dr. Robinson was the first
to turn upon me, and so far was the Protestant feeling of my countrymen,
especially north of the Tweed, from sympathising with my vindication of the
Bible, that they remained silent in the midst of the clamour raised by the High
Church party in defence of the traditions invalidated by these new discoveries.

Under these circumstances, I would willingly have waited till the completion
of Captain Warren’s great discovery of the rock-cut foundations of the Basilica,
or till some other tangible proof of the correctness or falsity of my views had
been brought forward in a manner that admitted of no dispute. In what I
am about to say in the following pages, I cannot but feel that I am appealing to
those who fail to understand the language in which they are addressed ; and I

PKEFACE.

have, therefore, very little hope of carrying conviction to their minds ; and
if I were younger, and could afford to wait, I would do so, but at my time of
life, if anything is to be said, it were well it were done quickly, or it may be
that there may be no opportunity of saying it at all.

Feeling all this strongly, I have desired to put on record the fact
that, so far as I am capable of judging, every difficulty that met the reception
of my views when 1 first wrote on the subject has been cleared away by the
new facts acquired by subsequent researches, in the manner explained in the
following pages. The one point on which no new light has been thrown is that
of the transference of the Sepulchre from the eastern to the western hill, though
this, in fact, never was a difficulty that deserved a moment’s notice if the main
facts of the argument were correct. It was, moreover, a point regarding which
I scarcely expected any new discoveries to be made. It is hardly likely that any
of those who were concerned in it would have left a record of a transaction which,
according to the feelings of that age, was perfectly legitimate if successful, but
which would have thrown doubt and dismay into the bosoms of all the faithful
of Christendom if found out. It may be, however, that a more careful
examination of the diplomatic correspondence between the East and West, from
the time of Charlemagne to that of the Crusades, may reveal what is now
mysterious ; but this can only be done by those who have access to documents
not yet printed or in the hands of the public.

Be this as it may, for the present it must suffice to know that there is not a
shadow of architectural evidence in favour of the Sepulchre in the city being built
by Constantine, to set against the overwhelming mass of proofs that the Dome of
the Rock and the Golden Gateway were built by that Emperor. At the same
time, it may safely be asserted that there is not one word in any work that may
not be applied to a Sepulchre on the eastern hill as correctly as to one on the
western hill, and a great many, I believe, that can only apply to the former.

I myself have very little hope of any great success being attained in eluci-
dating the history of this transaction ; but, at the same time, it appears of the
least possible consequence whether it is obtained or not. If Constantine built the
Dome of the Rock, the fact of the transference is certain, and the motive is only
too clear. It was done because it had become absolutely necessary from the position
of the Christians in Jerusalem in the eleventh century. They were forcibly dis-
possessed of their own church on the eastern hill, and they of necessity erected one
on the only available site on the western hill, and there, in consequence, we now
find it. It may be unfortunate that this should be so, but I can see no reason
why the fact should not be acknowledged if it can be proved.

When, from the subjects bearing more or less directly on the authenticity of
the Holy Sepulchre of the Christians, we turn to the Temple of the Jews, we find
ourselves standing on safer and surer ground. No dogma or matters of faith are

PREFACE.

mixed lip with questions connected with the situation or dimensions of the Temple,
and, however divergent opinions may be on the subject, all reasoning is based
either on an examination of authorities or on local indications, viewed by the
light of the ordinary and accepted principles generally employed in such investi-
gations. Where this is the case, truth is sure to be arrived at when sufficient
industry has been applied, to make it certain that all the circumstances bearing
on the subject have been sufficiently examined.

When I wrote my ‘Ancient Topography of Jerusalem,’ I did not consider
it necessary for the design of that work to examine the internal arrangements of
the Temple with any great care. It was sufficient for all topographical purposes
to know, first, that the Temple was, practically, a square measuring 600 feet on
each side; secondly, that there was sufficient space for a building of these
dimensions in the south-west angle of the Haram area ; and, thirdly, that there
was ample room and to spare within the precincts of a Temple so circumscribed
for all the buildings described by Josephus and by the Rabbis. Being satisfied
on these three points, I plotted the Temple roughly on my plans to a very small
scale, and there left it for future elaboration. When, however, the Ordnance
Survey, made under the direction of Major Wilson, was published, I found
myself in a position to carry the process a step further, and, after spoiling a good
many copies of the sheets containing the plan of the Haram area, have at last
satisfied myself that very little more remains to be done in so far as the plan is
concerned. There are one or two minor details on which a little more study
might be profitably employed, but they are comparatively of so little importance
that they may very well be left for future consideration.

On turning, however, from the plan to the elevation, the case is some-
what different. The result is very unlike what I expected when I first took
the investigation in hand, and, to others, will no doubt appear even more
strange and improbable than it did to me when it gradually developed itself as
I became more familiar with the subject. I am consequently quite prepared to
hear it called “absurd,” “improbable,” “impossible,” and characterised by even
stronger terms than these. Adjectives, however, are of little importance in a
controversy of this sort. The only criticism I can accept will be when some
one goes through the whole evidence as carefully as I have done, and produces
an elevation more justified by the authorities, and more in accordance with the
style of architecture prevalent in Syria at the time when it was erected. When
this is done, I will most gladly withdraw my illustrations, and hail with delight
a better solution of the problem than I have been able to afford.

When I first undertook this renewed study of the form of the Temple, I
was anxious to obtain the assistance of some scholar who, by his knowledge of
Hebrew, might enable me to understand the architectural terms employed in the
Bible and the Talmud, and whose familiarity with Jewish literature might have

Xll

PREFACE.

added interest to my dry descriptions. In this I have not been successful, and,
after all, it would have been hardly fair to have asked anyone to bestow the
requisite time and labour on the work of another from which he could only at
best get a dim reflection of credit. As the investigation proceeded, I found less
and less cause to regret this disappointment. The points which my ignorance of
Hebrew forced me to pass over were much fewer than I anticipated, and I felt
it was much better I should put them aside than to attempt to explain at second
hand what I could not master myself. The work, too, is quite extensive enough
as it stands, and I now feel that it is far better that it should be considered only
as an Architect’s contribution to the elucidation of the subject, and that it should
be left to scholars at their leisure to rectify any errors my want of knowledge of
the language may have led me into, and that they should clothe in any form
of flesh they think best, the skeleton I have attempted to prepare for them. The
points regarding which a competent knowledge of Hebrew would have enabled
me to give a clearer or better definition are, I feel convinced, few and insignificant
when compared with those which are discussed in this work, and decided on totally
different grounds, and it is consequently with little regret that I leave them to
those who may come after me in this investigation.

The principal reason why this work has been confined exclusively to the
description of the buildings in the Haram area is that recent explorations have
thrown no new light on the position of the walls, or on the topography of the
city itself. What I had to say on that subject has already been said in my
previous publications, and I see no reason for altering the conclusions there
arrived at, to such an extent at least as to make it worth while reopening the
controversy. The one discovery, if it can be so-called, bearing on this subject, is
the fixation of the true site of Scopus by Lieutenant Conder on the northern road
leading from Jerusalem, at a distance of almost exactly 7 stadia from the “Tombs
of the Kings,” 1 proving, consequently, that I was quite correct in following
Josephus’ indication, and placing the third wall in immediate juxtaposition to these
sepulchres. If, indeed, Josephus is to be followed — and there is no other authority
— this position of this wall is certain, and never would have been questioned but
for the fatal confusion which the location of the Holy Sepulchre in the middle
of the town, by the Crusaders, has introduced into the topography of Jerusalem.

With regard to the second wall, I am happy to be able to avail myself of
this opportunity to correct a blunder I had made when previously writing on the
subject. In his description of the walls, Josephus states there were ninety towers
on the third wall, while its length, measured on the ground, is 4300 to 4400
yards, and consequently the towers were something less than 50 yards apart from
centre to centre. The old wall measured 3400 yards and had sixty towers,

Quarterly Reports, Palestine Exploration Fund, for 1874, p. 112.

PREFACE.

Xlll

which, consequently, were 56 or 57 yards apart. But the second wall, whilst
scarcely exceeding 1000 yards, had, as I read it — trusting too carelessly, I fear,
to Whiston’s translation — forty towers, or with the impossible distance of only
25 yards apart.1 It was one of the many difficulties that are sure to arise in an
investigation of this sort, which I thought might well be left to future
investigations, or to clearer heads, for a satisfactory solution ; and as it was not
very important, there I left it. It never occurred to me that so obvious a
blunder could have been made so long ago, and the work passed through so
man}" editions without being detected. But the fact was, when the original Greek
was consulted, the number was found to be fourteen, instead of forty , and the
consequent fifteen spaces gave the very probable spacing of a little more than
60 yards from the centre of one tower to that of the next.

Looked at from a controversial point of view, I do not now regret the
mistake, inasmuch as it shows that, though this fact looked fatal to my views,
still, Josephus’ description was so clear, and the nature of the ground so
marked, that it was possible, in spite of the supposed assertion of Josephus,
to fix the position and ascertain the length of the second wall with almost perfect
certainty. Personally, I rather rejoice in it, as it is charming to find that
there was at least one instance regarding which I cannot be accused of knowingly
and purposely perverting the evidence to suit my own preconceived theories.

The truth of the matter is there is no city in the ancient world where the
features of the ground on which it stood are so strongly and clearly marked out by
nature, none the topography of which has been so well and so clearly described as
that of Jerusalem has been by Josephus, or one where the historian’s descriptions
can be so easily checked and authenticated by the circumstantial details of an im-
portant siege. Under these circumstances, the topography of the city would have
been easily ascertained, and never would have been disputed, had not the trans-
ference of the Holy Sepulchre from the eastern to the western hill necessitated a
reconstruction of the whole topography, in order to accommodate it, as far as
possible, to the new state of things then introduced. The circumstances under
which this was done rendered it inevitable, and in the dark ages it was, to say
the least of it, most inexpedient, if not impossible, from a priestly point of view,
that they should be made public ; but, in the nineteenth century, these motives
ought no longer to exist, and every one would be benefited by the truth being
made known. As the case stands at present, the public have two systems before
them ; one of which, assuming the Sepulchre to have been on the eastern hill,
accords, in so far as I am capable of forming an opinion, with every word of the
Bible narrative without straining or difficulty, renders all the descriptions of
Josephus clear and intelligible, and agrees with every local indication so far as
they can be at present seen. The other, assuming the Sepulchre to have been

1 Bell. Jud. v. 4, 3.

XIV

PREFACE.

situated in the centre of the city, can only, it appears to me, be reconciled with
the Bible narrative, avowedly, by the total rejection of the descriptions of
Josephus, by ignoring all the details of the siege, and by overlooking many
local indications and facts connected with the population and defence of the city.

The public have hitherto emphatically declared for the latter system, while,
though confident, I am far from wishing it to be understood that I fancy I must
necessarily be right, in distinctly adhering to an opposite view. All I mean
to assert is, that, as the evidence at present stands, and is known to me, I can
draw no other conclusions than those I have done, and I believe enough has
been adduced in the various works I have published on the subject to convince
any impartial and properly qualified person that the Dome of the Rock was
built by Constantine, with all the consequences that inevitably follow from that
admission. Judging, however, from the experience gained during the long
years that I have been more or less connected with these questions, I see no
probability that anything now brought forward will induce people in general to
qualify themselves for giving an opinion on this controversy, though that is all
that is asked. Unless, therefore, some accidental discovery should throw new
light on the matter, I can hardly hope that I shall live to see any change in
the general opinion regarding some of the questions mooted in these pages.
But be this as it may, nothing can deprive me of the memory of the many
happy days I have spent on these investigations, nor, unless something very
unforeseen and unexpected turns up, of the satisfaction of feeling that I may
have solved several problems which have puzzled many men with whose talent
or learning I cannot pretend to compete.

CONTENTS.

PREFACE

Page iii

PART I.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

CHAP. PAGE

I.— Introductory .. 1

II. — Authorities 7

III. — Jewish Measures 15

IY. — The Tabernacle 18

V. — The Temple of Solomon .. .. 26

CHAP. PAGE

VI. — Solomon’s Palace 40

VII. — Sepulchres of the Kings of

Israel 52

VIII. — The Temple of Ezekiel .. .. 59

IX. — The Temple of Zerubbabel .. 66

PART II.

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

CHAP. PAGE

I. — External Dimensions 71

II. — The Court of the Gentiles . . 77

ILL — The Inner Temple 95

IV. — Gates and Chambers 106

V. — The Court of the Women.. .. 117

VI. — The Altar and the Temple in

Plan 121

VII. — The Temple in Elevation.. .. 129

CHAP. PAGE

VIII. — Fajade 140

IX. — The Toran 151

X. — Architectural Illustrations —

Tombs — Synagogues — Palaces 161

XI. — The Tower Antonia 172

XII. — The History of the Temple

AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF

Jerusalem 182

PART III.

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE II ARAM AREA.

CHAP. PAGE

I. — Introductory 193

II. — The Dome of the Rock .. .. 199

III. — The Dome of the Rock — Mosaics 218

IV. — The Dome of the Rock — His-

tory 225

CHAP. P.AGE

V. — The Golden Gateway and the

Basilica of Constantine .. 229

VI. — Justinian’s Church and the

Mosque el Aksa 245

Conclusion 255

XVI

CONTENTS.

APPENDICES.

APP. PAGE

I.- — The Middoth — Measurements of

the Temple 261

II.— Translation of Kufic Inscrip-
tion in the Dome of the Rock.

By E. H. Palmer, M.A. .. 269

III. — Translation of Paragraph in
Procopius’ ‘ De Edificiis.’ By
Rev. George Williams .. .. 271

IV. — Itinerarium Burdigala Hieru-
salem usque. From ‘ Palestine
Descriptions,’ &c. By Titus

Tobler

Y. — Le Temple he Jerusalem : Mono-
graphie du Haram ech Cherif.
By Count Melchior he Vogue

PAGE

273

277

INDEX

295

LIST OF PLATES.

FRONTISPIECE. — PERSPECTIVE VIEW OF THE TEMPLE OF HEROD,
AS RESTORED.

I.— PLAN OF SOLOMON’S TEMPLE AND PALACE

II.— PLAN OF TEMPLE AS REBUILT BY HEROD

III. — FRONT ELEVATION OF HEROD’S TEMPLE

IV. —SIDE ELEVATION AND SECTION OF HEROD'S TEMPLE

V— PLAN OF CONSTANTINE’S BUILDINGS IN II ARAM AREA

VI— SECTION OF THE DOME OF THE ROCK

VII— PLAN OF THE HARAM AREA, WITH THE JEWISH, CHRISTIAN, AND

MAHOMEDAN BUILDINGS THEREIN

VIII.— SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE HARAM AREA, SHOWING THE UNDER-
GROUND CISTERNS AND VAULTS

At the End.

LIST OF WOODCUTS.

NO. PAGE

1. — Plan of the Tabernacle 21

2. — Diagram Section of the Tabernacle .. 23

3. — View of the Tabernacle 24

4. — Plan of Solomon’s Temple 26

5. — Section of Solomon’s Temple, with and

without Upper Room 26

6. — Imaginary Contours of the Haram

Area 36

7. — Diagram representing Three Rows of

Hewn Stones and a Row of Cedar
Beams 39

8. — City Gateways, Khorsabad 62

9. — Diagram Plan of the Temple as de-

scribed by Ezekiel 62

19. Plan of the Temple and Sanctuary as

described by Ezekiel 63

11- Diagram of Three Rows of Hewn Stones,
with a Row of Cedar Beams, verti-
cally 67

12. — Longitudinal and Transverse Sections
of the Vaults in the South-eastern
Angle of the Haram Area .. .. 75

NO. PAGE

13. — Diagram Plan Section of the Stoa

Basilica and Enclosure of Inner
Temple, with Substructures .. .. 80

14. — Diagram representing the supposed

Plan and Elevation of the Cause-
way across the TYROPiEON Valley 84

15. — Section North and South through

Barclay’s Gateway 86

16. — Capital of Pillar in Vestibule of

Southern Entrance 89

17. — Capital of Order of the Tower of the

Winds, Athens 89

18. — One Quadrant of One of the Domes in

the Vestibule of the Gate Huldah 90

19. — One Quadrant of Dome of the Vesti-

bule UNDER THE AkSA 91

20. — Diagram explanatory of Betii Mokadh 113

21. — Plan and Elevation of the Altar .. 121

22. — Plan of Herod’s Temple 125

23. — Japanese Toran 126

24. — Section of Herod’s Temple 129

25. — Spikes on Ridge and Cornices of Temple 136

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.

xviii

NO. PAGE

26. — Facade of Church at Tourmanim .. 139

27. — Plan of Temple of Baalzamin .. .. 140

28. — Details of Facade of Temple of Baal-

zamin 141

29. — Tomb of Zacharias, Valley of Jeho-

shaphat 142

30. — Tomb of St. James, Valley of Jeho-

shaphat 143

31. — Position of Tombs in Valley of Jeho-

shaphat 144

32. — Coin of Cyprus 152

33. — Northern Gateway of the Great Tope

at Sanchi 153

34. — Vine-bearing Tor an in Front of Herod's

Temple 155

35. — Rough Diagram explanatory of the
Screen supported by the Pillars
of Jachin and Boaz in Front of

Solomon’s Temple .. 157

36. — Portion of the Lid of Herod’s Sarco-

phagus 163

37. — Copper Coin of Judas Maccabeus .. 163

38. — Doorway of Tombs of Judges .. .. 164

39. — Entrance to Tomb near Jerusalem .. 164

40. — Synagogue at Tell Hum 165

41. — Doorway of Synagogue at Iyefr Beirim 167

42. — Ruined Niche in Synagogue at Chorazin 168

43. — Compartment of Western Octagon
Tower of the Persian Palace at

Masiiita 169

44. — Plan of the Antonia according to

Josephus 173

45. — Arch in South-western Tower of the

Antonia • 175

46. — Section, East and West, through

Wilson’s Arch and the Adjoining
Chambers 177

47. — Julian’s Affix to the Huldah Gate-

way 185

48. — Plan of the Dome of the Rock . .. 198

49. — Elevation and Section of the Flank

of the Dome of the Rock .. .. 200

50. — Upper Gallery, Dome of the Rock .. 201

51. — Gallery of Sant’ Ambrogio 203

52. — Capital from Cistern of Philoxenus at

Constantinople 204

NO. PAGE

53. — Plan of Cathedral at Boskai-i .. .. 205

54. — Section of Dome at Bosrah 206

55. — View in Aisle of the Dome of the

Rock 208

56. — View in the Interior of the Aksa .. 208

57. — Court in Diocletian’s Palace at

Spalatro 210

58. — Arcade from Church of St. Demetrius

at Thessalonica, a.d. 500-520 .. 211

59. — Capital, Santa Sophia, Constantinople 212

60. — Capital, Santa Sophia, Constantinople 212

61. — Bronze Plaque from Underside of Beam,

Dome of the Rock 212

62. — Capital and Entablature of Inter-

mediate Range of Pillars, Dome of
the Rock 213

63. — Capital and Cornice of the Inter-

mediate Range of Columns in the
Dome of the Rock 215

64. — Capital from Church of St. John Studios

at Constantinople 216

65. — Baptistery of Constantine 216

66. — Section of Lateran Baptistery .. .. 217

67. — West Face of Golden Gateway .. .. 230

68. — Interior of Golden Gateway .. .. 231

69. — Capital and Entablature of the In-

terior of Golden Gateway .. .. 232

70. — Section of Vaults discovered by Captain

Warren, North of Platform of
Dome of the Rock .. 235

71. — Plan of Vaults discovered by Captain

Warren 235

72. — Plan of the Four Churches in the

Haram Area 240

73. — Diagram explanatory of the Probable

Arrangement of Justinian’s Build-
ings in the South-east Angle of
the Haram 248

74. — Mosque El Aksa 252

75. — Plan of the Temple of Herod as Re-

stored by Count de VoGirfc .. .. 278

76. — Section of Masonry lining the Birket

Israel 282

77. — West Front of Golden Gateway .. .. 285

78. — Capital of Dome of the Rock .. .. 289

79. — Capital of Pillar in the Aksa .. .. 289

E E K A T U M.

A foot-note lias been inadvertently omitted at page 155, which was intended to explain that
the golden leaves of the vine on the Toran had been purposely omitted, in Woodcut 34, in order
to exhibit the architectural framework more clearly, though in reality they were the principal
ornaments of the screen. They were shown in the drawing for the Frontispiece, but that has
been reduced by photography to so small a scale that they are not now sufficiently apparent
to remedy this omission.

r r vr.

r - r r r r f

Part I.

EARLlr TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

CHAPTER I.

INTRODUCTORY.

It is, perhaps, no exaggeration to say that there is not, in the whole world, any
spot of the same limited area, in which so much interest of a religious or archaeo-
logical character has been so long centred, as in the Haram area at Jerusalem. It
may he that the tradition is unfounded which says that it was here that Abraham
offered to sacrifice his son Isaac, but it certainly was the spot where the threshing-
floor of Araunah was placed, on which David erected that altar which became the
centre of the faith of his people and the symbol of their aspirations. It was
within its boundaries that Solomon erected all those buildings which have made
his name so celebrated to all future generations. It was too within the precincts
of his famous temple, as rebuilt by Herod, that Christ taught, and where many of
the principal scenes of his ministry and passion were enacted, so that it became,
as it were, the cradle of Christianity as it had been of the Jewish dispensation.
It was from the site of this old Temple that Mahomet is fabled to have ascended
to heaven on his famous night journey, and but for the refusal of the Jews to
acknowledge him as a prophet, it might have become the Kaaba of that faith,
instead of the mean and comparatively modern structure at Mecca.

The consequence of all this is, that though now in the exclusive possession
of the Moslems, and considered by them as only slightly less sacred than the
Kaaba itself, the Jews still sorrowfully regard it as the emblem of their faith
and former greatness, torn from them by cruel injustice and oppression, while
Christians regard the spot with an interest only limited by their ignorance of
the true history of the place.

M hen looked at from an architectural or archeological point of view, the
Haram is almost as interesting as it is in its religious aspects. The temples of
Egypt were indeed larger and more magnificent, and those of Greece more beautiful
and artistic, but none obtained such world-wide celebrity, or were so essentially
the emblems of the greatness or the symbols of the national faith, as that which
Solomon erected on this spot; and as rebuilt by Herod, it probably rivalled most

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

of the temples of antiquity in magnificence. If we could restore them in all their
pristine magnificence, it probably would be found that the group of buildings
which Constantine erected in the Haram, to commemorate the scenes of the
Passion, were at least as beautiful and as magnificent as anything of their age ; and
that the Mary Church, which Justinian erected in the south-east corner of the
Haram area, was only second in splendour to his own great creation at Constan-
tinople. The Aksa, too, was the greatest of all the mosques the Moslems attempted
to erect — as a wholly original design — in the first century of the Hejira, and,
like some of the buildings of Constantine, still retains enough of its pristine
arrangements to enable us to judge fairly what its original form may have been.

The case is, unfortunately, widely different with regard to the buildings of
Solomon. The prophecy regarding the Temple has long been fulfilled, literally
not one stone, above ground, remains standing on another ; and were it not for the
loving care with which the Jews, in all ages, have dwelt on its form and glories,
we should now know little or nothing about it. The Bible, however, delights to
dwell, with a minuteness of detail which has no parallel in ancient history, on the
forms and furniture of the original Temple, and of that erected after the Captivity.
Josephus, too, repeats the Biblical descriptions, it may be with less accuracy, but
with greater fulness, so as to enable us to realise its appearance, as rebuilt by
Herod, where the Bible deserts us. Still later, the Babbis, in the Talmud,
gathered together all the traditional measurements with a care that leaves little
to be desired in that respect, though they put them together with an ignorance of
their application which has hitherto prevented their value being appreciated as it
might otherwise have been.

After all, however, it was not for its architectural magnificence, as we
usually understand the term, that Solomon’s Temple was remarkable. It was,
in fact, hardly larger than an ordinary parish church of the present day, and
whether the stone work was elaborately carved or not, we have no means of
knowing. What made it remarkable was the beauty of the carvings in cedar
wood which lined its walls internally, the wealth of gold and silver that
were spread over them, and, above all, the vessels and ornaments of bronze,
fashioned by Hiram of Tyre, all which made up, in the eyes of the Jews at
least, a mobilier of unrivalled richness and beauty. Even this, however, would
hardly account for the enthusiasm and reverence with which it was regarded.
Its claim to veneration by the Jewish people arose from their belief that its
place and ordinance were divinely revealed by God to man, that it was the one
temple of the one God, the holy Zion, where their God delighted to dwell among
his chosen people, the symbol of his covenant with them, the centre of all their
national faiths and aspirations. Similar feelings acting upon a people of
cognate race have, among the Semitic Arabs, thrown around the Kaaba at Mecca,
the meanest of modern shrines, a halo of glory, which it is difficult for Western
people to understand. This peculiarity may, no doubt, have induced the Israelites

Chap. I.

INTRODUCTORY.

to attribute exaggerated importance and exceptional magnificence to their one
holy place in a manner that will not bear the test of modern criticism. Even
assuming this, however, to be the case, the Christian religion, like the Mahomedan,
is based on the Jewish. Tbeir Scriptures are our Bible, and they have imparted
to us a portion at least of the enthusiasm they feel, and have always felt, for this
far famed edifice. Whether rightly or wrongly, it is probable that for a long time
to come both Moslem and Christian will continue to look on the Temple at
Jerusalem as one of the most sacred and most interesting of all the shrines of
the ancient world, though it never can be to them what it always was, and still
is, to people of the Jewish race and persuasion.

With all these claims to attention, it is little to be wondered at that the
Temple at Jerusalem has excited the interest and exercised the ingenuity of a
countless number of antiquaries and restorers, especially when, with the revival of
literature some three or four centuries ago, such enquiries became a fashionable and
engrossing amusement with the best educated classes of the community. During
the middle ages the Temple of Solomon was simply a richly decorated Gothic
church in the style of the day. The simple faith and narrow view of archaeology
of those days did not admit of their dreaming of the existence of any other style
except that then in use, and certainly of none to be compared with it in beauty
and excellence. When, however, classical studies were revived, and men became
familiar with Roman art, as well as Roman literature, more serious attempts were
made to realise the appearance of this celebrated building. These, though more
successful than the earlier attempts, were still very unlike what we now believe
the true aspect of the Temple to have been.

One great cause of tbeir want of success was that they all failed to
discriminate between what belonged to Solomon and what to Herod. Their
one great idea was that the Temple must have resembled a great Renaissance
palace 1600 feet square, and in some instances, reading Josephus literally, they
placed it on a basement 300 cubits high!1

The most artistic of these restorations is that published by the Brothers
Pradi or Yillalpandi,2 the least satisfactory that which Herrera built as a
palace for Philip II. of Spain at the Escorial ;3 but the two are so like one another
that there can be no doubt, they were meant for the same object;4 and our only
regret is that the Pradi were not employed to build the palace and the architect,
to write the book. But whether this was so or not, it is quite evident that
neither they nor any of their contemporaries understood the conditions of the

1 B. J. v. 5, 1.

2 Explanations in Ezekielem, Rom®, 1596-1604,

3 vols. fol.

3 The dimensions of the Escorial, exclusive of the
projection behind, are 675 feet by 530 feet.

4 The absurd explanation of the plan of the Escorial
usually given, that it was meant to symbolise the grid-

iron on which St. Lawrence was roasted, is sufficiently
refuted by an examination of contemporary pictures,
representing this martyrdom. In them it is always an
iron bedstead, which may have been a usual implement
of torture in those days, while our ideas of a grid-iron
are borrowed from cook-shops where beefsteaks and
mutton chops are prepared.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

problem they bad undertaken to solve. Since their time most of the attempts at
restoration have been soberer and more critical, but still not one plan has been
published which meets with general acceptance, nor any restoration which can be
considered as fairly representing the appearance of the building.

It is easy to understand why all the earlier attempts at restoration should
- have proved unsuccessful. It was, in the first place, that those who undertook
them had no knowledge whatever of the localities, and almost as little of the
styles of architecture that prevailed in the East when the Temples were built.
Even now we have only the haziest idea possible of the styles of architecture
prevalent in Syria in the age of Solomon, say, a thousand years before Christ ;
and no one yet has been able to offer a reasonable representation of the
two pillars — Jachin and Boaz — that adorned the porch of his Temple. If the
text were retranslated by some thoroughly competent scholar, a solution might be
approximated, but even then some further discoveries of contemporary examples
must be made before anything like certainty with regard to these pillars can be
obtained. On the other hand, we can restore the Corinthian porticos with which
Herod surrounded the Court of the Gfentiles with almost absolute certainty,
but the Temple itself presents difficulties not so easily overcome. Still our
knowledge of the Roman architecture in Syria has been so greatly extended of
late years, and our present familiarity with the Christian and other styles that
grew out of it, affords so many hints, that its general appearance may probably
be reproduced within very narrow limits of uncertainty.

The first-named cause was, however, even more fatal to success than
ignorance of style, for although all were agreed that the Temple stood somewhere
within the enclosure called the Haram ash Sharif, till very recently no plans of
that area existed that could at all be depended upon. The first that had any
pretension to accuracy was made by Mr. Catherwood, who, in company with Messrs.
Arundale and Bonorni, spent six weeks in the Haram area in 1833, exploring,
drawing, and measuring everything with the most exemplary diligence. On
their return home, they published a small plan, octavo size, as the first result of
their survey, but they never received sufficient encouragement to enable them to
produce their more detailed and complete illustrations of the place. It was not,
therefore, till after Mr. Catherwood’s death in 1850, when his papers came into
my hands, that any attempt was made to produce a perfect plan. His survey
was made and protracted on a scale of 10 feet to 1 inch, but unfortunately not all
on one sheet, but on some thirty or forty bits of paper, some pasted, some pinned
together, but many loose and with the points of junction imperfectly marked. I
spent both time and money on these materials, but the result was never quite
satisfactory.1 It was not therefore till 1868, when the Ordnance Survey of the

1 The plan was engraved at the Admiralty, and published in 1861, in a single sheet 25 by 38 inches, on a
scale of 54 feet to 1 inch.

Chap. I.

INTRODUCTORY.

Haram area, made under the superintendence of Captain (now Major) Wilson,
R.E., was published that any perfectly reliable data existed. As might be
expected, this document leaves very little to be desired, except that, being on so
small a scale, little more than 41 feet to 1 inch, or l-500th, and no dimensions
being figured, it is not always easy to be sure — as will be explained farther
on — of the correctness of any dimensions that may be taken from it.

In addition to the advantages afforded by these more correct surveys, the
Haram area itself is now easily accessible to all travellers on the payment of a
small fee. All can consequently verify or correct their impressions by actual
inspection of the place itself, and can familiarise themselves with the features of
the locality in a manner not easily done by those who have never visited the site.

Notwithstanding these advantages, it does not appear that any greater
degree of harmony has of late years been produced among those who have
devoted their attention to the subject. The Count de Vogue', for instance, spreads
out the Temple over the whole Haram area, making it, in direct defiance of every
written authority and every local indication — so far as I can judge — upwards of
1500 feet north and south, by an average breadth of about 1000 feet.1

The Rev. G-eorge Williams, it is presumed with the approval of the late
Professor Willis, cuts off about 500 feet from the southern end of the Haram, and
places his Temple, about 1000 feet square, in the northern division.2 Dr. Robinson,
the American, on the contrary, cuts off 600 feet from the northern end, and
leaves his Temple a little more than 900 feet square in the southern portion;3
while Captain Warren’s last theory makes it a quadrangular figure, with only
two right angles, and the sides varying from 922 to 1138 feet.4

In 1841 I published my views,5 stating my conviction to be, that the Temple
was a rectangle 600 feet square, and situated in the south-western angle of the
Haram area. Since then, Messrs. Tobler and Rosen have published works in
German, in which they adopt the same dimensions, but place the Temple in the
south-east corner — while Messrs. Thrupp 6 and Lewin 7 adopt both the same
dimensions as I did before them, and place the Temple in the same locality.
Others adopt plans more or less in accordance or at variance with the above,
the views of their authors being mainly influenced by certain topographical and
religious questions, whose determination is supposed to depend on the position
assigned to the Temple itself.

I am not, of course, in the following pages going to attempt to refute the

1 Le Temple de Jerusalem, folio, Paris, 1864. Vide
Appendix.

2 1 he Holy City, vol. ii. pp. 360 et seqq. Neither his
text nor his map is quite distinct on this point. He
does not in fact appear to have been quite able to make
up his own mind regarding it.

3 Biblical Researches, vol. i. p. 430.

4 Underground Jerusalem, p. 80.

6 Topography of Jerusalem, pp. 5-30.

6 Antient Jerusalem, 8vo., 1855. In his introduction
to Jerusalem Recovered, p. 30, Captain Wilson mentions
Thrupp’s plan with approval, but makes no allusion to
my labours in publishing Catherwood’s plan, and does
not mention that, with the slightest variation, Thrupp’s
plan was copied from mine.

7 Archajologia, xliv. id. 1.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part

views of the authors just enumerated. If I am right, it follows as a matter of
course that all except the two last-named must be wrong, and it will be sufficient
to prove my own case to make it clear that they are so.

It may seem presumptuous — perhaps is so— on my part to venture to differ
not only from those above quoted, hut from many others with whose views I do
not agree ; but the fact, so far as I am able to judge, seems to be, that no one since
the recently acquired information became available, has taken the trouble and
pains necessary to master the whole subject. No one, so far as I know, has gone
through all the Temples from the Tabernacle, to the destruction of the last by
Titus, protracting each peculiarity as it arose, and superimposing each addition or
alteration on the same plan. No one, while doing this, has attempted, in modern
times, to co-ordinate the Bible, the historians, and the Talmud, so as to get a
consistent answer out of their frequently discordant testimonies. Lightfoot1 and
the Rabbis2 have attempted the latter task with great industry, but they failed for
want of the local knowledge, and of the architectural skill necessary to solve the
problem. Whether in this instance, long study, combined with local knowledge
and a certain amount of architectural skill, together with the new materials
now available, will suffice to settle the questions regarding the Temple, hitherto
in dispute, remains to be seen. So far as I am capable of forming an opinion,
the task now appears easy, and the result certain, within very narrow limits of
deviation in any direction.

1 Prospect of the Temple, first published in folio in
1649. In the following pages I have used the 8vo.
edition of 1823, vol. ix.

2 My information on the subject is principally derived
from the Codex Middoth, sive de Mensuris Templi — •
in Hebrew — cum versione latina opera et studio Con-

stantini l’Empereur, de Oppyck, Lugduni Batavorum,
1630. But, for convenience of reference, a translation of
the Middoth made by the Rev. Dr. Barclay, and pub-
lished at Jerusalem in 1867, is reprinted, with his
permission, in the Appendix.

Chap. II.

AUTHORITIES.

CHAPTER II.

AUTHORITIES.

As in almost all similar cases, the data available for the elucidation of the subject
are twofold in their nature. First, there are the written authorities, and, next,
the topographical or local indications. If these cannot be reconciled, cadit quce.stio,
a satisfactory solution is impracticable. If they are found to be in accordance
with one another, like the testimony of two perfectly independent witnesses, they
may, in most cases, be considered as settling the points in dispute.

In the present instance, the Bible, of course, is the first and most important
witness, and would also be the last it would be necessary to call, if it contained
all we want to know. It is, however, in no sense a topographical work, and what
we gather from it, in that respect, is generally obtained more from incidental
allusions than from any purposelike indications. Still, in so far as the Tabernacle
is concerned, it is, with Josephus’ paraphrase, the only witness, and fortunately,
in this instance, is sufficient and complete. So too it is with the dimensions and
most of the details of Solomon’s Temple, but the books which describe it, are
provokingly silent as to the size and disposition of its courts. The descriptions
of the Temple contained in the 40th to 43rd chapters of Ezekiel in a great
measure supply this deficiency, and with some allusions in Esdras, and one invaluable
passage in Hecataeus, enable us, as will be explained in the sequel, to feel very
great confidence that we can ascertain what the dimensions and disposition of the
Temple were before it was rebuilt and reformed by Herod.

Unfortunately, the New Testament affords few indications that are of much
importance from a topographical point of view. But this deficiency is in a great
measure supplied by the works of Josephus, who was not only personally familiar
with the localities, but who, in writing his ‘Antiquities’ and ‘History of the Wars
of the Jews,’ had ocassion to investigate carefully all the authorities bearing on
the subject. Yet Josephus can seldom be implicitly relied upon, or his statements
accepted as final, without careful examination. One of his great objects in writing
his works was to exalt his people in the eyes of their conquerors, because he thereby
flattered his patrons, the Romans, by exaggerating the greatness of the resistance
they had overcome. At the same time, by so doing, he gratified his own pride
as a Jew by magnifying the importance of his people, and so perhaps sought to
make some amends for the unpatriotic and not very dignified part he had taken
in their last struggle for independence. Still, he is generally so correct in his

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

topographical details, in so far at least as the plan of the Temple is concerned,
that I cannot help feeling — as was first suggested to me by George Finlay,
the historian of Greece under the Romans1- — that he wrote, with a plan of the
city and its buildings before him. That the Romans were first-rate surveyors is
certain, and nothing is more probable than that they should make careful plans
of the important fortresses they conquered ; but, be that as it may, at the time
Josephus wrote, Jerusalem was in the hands of the Romans, and the ruins
of the Temple were still sufficiently distinct to be easily recognisable. He no
more dared to exaggerate them in plan than he would have dared to falsify the
dimensions of any building in Rome itself. Detection would have been sure
to follow. But when it came to height, the case was different. Once knocked
down or destroyed, no one could say what the height of any building may
have been, nor of what parts its elevation was made up ; and it is curious
to observe into what strange contradictions the absence of all memoranda
regarding heights frequently betrayed him. The tendency to exaggeration also
led him sometimes to employ expressions which nothing can justify, as, for
instance, when he says 2 that, “ when you looked down from the roof of the Stoa
Basilica, you could not see the bottom of the valley, it was so far off,” or when
he asserts 3 that “ the height of the north-east angle of the Temple over the
‘ so-called valley of Kedron ’ was so great as to be terrific ” ; which it could not
have been on any theory of the Temple yet proposed. These, in any other
author, would be regarded as mere rhetorical flourishes, but, in so controverted
a matter as the site of the Temple, have led to half the misunderstandings that
exist regarding it, and have prevented the statements of Josephus from being
received with the confidence they generally so well deserve.

There is still another point of view from which Josephus’ statements must be
received with considerable caution. Though so excellent a tojiographer, he was
no antiquary — no one indeed was in his days — and he was consequently careless
as to who the actual builders of the Temple were, and often contradicts himself
in his attempts to assign his portion to each. Thus there is no doubt that in the
8tli book of the ‘ Antiquities’ (3, 91) he ascribes the building of the whole of
the outer courts, to the extent of 400 cubits square, to Solomon. Nor can it
be denied that the description in the 15th book (11, 3) of the same work may be
construed as bearing the same interpretation, though this view is contradicted by
the context in the same passage. It is besides directly at variance with his own
statements in other parts of his work ; as, for instance, where he says,4 “ King
Solomon first built one cloister on the bank cast up for it to the eastward of the
Temple, but all the other parts of the house stood naked,” and then describes
how future generations, and especially Herod, had enlarged the area to its present

1 On the Site of the Holy Sepulchre (Smith, Elder, & Co., London, 1847), pp. 35 et seqq.

2 Ant. xv. 11, 5. 3 B. J. vi. 3, 2. 4 B. J. v. 5, 1.

Chap. II.

AUTHORITIES.

extent ; which, as he says,1 “ was twice the extent of the former Temple, which,
np to Herod’s time, had sufficed for the Jewish people of the old dispensation.”

In all this we clearly perceive the tendency of the historian’s mind to
exaggerate the greatness of everything belonging to his people ; and as Solomon
was the greatest of their kings, his works must he extolled and made as great as
it was possible ; but with all this the inevitable limit of 400 cubits was always
before him. The Romans were not likely to enquire, or to care whether it was
built bv Solomon or Zerubbabel, or by Herod ; but they did know its extreme
limits were one stadium each way, and to his credit, be it said, in no instance
does Josephus swerve from this limitation. Whether, as we shall presently see,
he speaks of it as measuring 1 stadium2 or of 400 cubits3 — and he never either
exceeds or deducts from these dimensions — with him the Temple of Jerusalem was
a square building measuring 600 feet each way ; and whether he was right or
wrong in this, it is at least his principal contribution to our knowledge of the
limits of the structure, and governs all the rest, internally at least.

The Talmud, which is our next authority on the subject, is of a totally
different character from the two just described ; and though its testimony is
frequently most valuable, and, in fact, indispensable, it must be taken at all times
with caution, and its sources examined with critical care. According to the best
modern authorities, the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled in the second or third
century after Christ ; the Babylonian in the fourth or fifth.4 Hone, therefore, of
the Rabbis, to whom it owes its present form, could have seen the Temple in its
peiffect state ; and it is very doubtful how many — if, indeed, any — of them had
been allowed to visit Jerusalem or inspect its ruins. Certain it is, at all events,
that, for the greater part of these early centuries, the Jews were forbidden to
approach the Holy City ; and if they did so, it was in secret, and without daring
to show themselves openly. It can hardly be wondered at if, under these
circumstances, their descriptions of the Temple want the completeness that might
have been obtained from eye-witnesses. Still, they seem to have had measure-
ments and details handed down from father to son, the accuracy of which there is
no reason for doubting ; and there were measurements recorded in earlier works
which may have been obtained from personal inspection, and which they quote
apparently with perfect fidelity, but too frequently without understanding their
application. One thing, however, may be said of the Rabbis which cannot
always be said of Josephus. They never exaggerate, and never knowing] y
misrepresent the facts in their possession. Their errors arise from ignorance,
never from bad faith. Their materials did not suffice to enable them to grasp
the whole subject ; and it is also probable that they were incapable of making a
plan or protracting their measurements in a formal manner, so that their use of

1 B. J. 1, 21, 1. s Ant. xv. 11,3 and 9. 3 Ant. xx. 10, 7, and viii. 3, 9.

4 Munk, Description de la Palestine, Paris, 1863, p. 608.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

them is deficient in completeness, and the connexion between them is not always
clear. In addition to this, the Rabbis were always haunted with the idea —
laudable in itself — that they must make their dimensions accord with those of
Ezekiel, in which they were not only justified, but correct. But before
attempting this, they ought to have been perfectly sure that they knew what
Ezekiel did say or meant. This was not, and is not in all instances, easy ; and
the Rabbis do not certainly seem to have been equal to the task, and con-
sequently make some mistakes which have tended to confuse their descriptions
to a considerable extent. Another source of error and uncertainty is that the
Talmudists generally entirely ignore the additions and alterations made by
Herod. Their descriptions and measurements are principally confined to the
inner courts, into which Herod never was allowed to enter ; 1 and consequently,
when we attempt to combine their measurements of the “ Mountain of the House”
with those of the “ Temple,” as they understood it, we find that they fall into
mistakes the presence of which is easily detected, though their source is not
always so easily explained.

From the time of the Talmudists wTe have no direct testimony as to the form
or dimensions of the Temple, but a good deal of collateral evidence which is
satisfactory, even if not decisive. Procopius,2 for instance, describes in great
detail the church Justinian built at Jerusalem, and in greater detail the difficulty
he had in making a platform for it, on the very uneven piece of ground he had
chosen for its site. So distinct are the indications thus afforded that few have
doubted but that the southern portion of the Haram area is the locality indicated ;
and notwithstanding the various ingenious hypotheses that have been invented
to escape the inevitable conclusion, it seems quite clear that the vaults to the
eastward of the Triple Gateway are the substructions which Justinian erected to
support his buildings. It seems also evident that he was forced to undertake all
this labour and expense in order to avoid the area of the accursed Temple of the
Jews, where his predecessor Julian had been so signally defeated in his attempts
to restore it.

The Mahomedans and their historians bear equally distinct testimony to what
they knew in the seventh century to be the site of the Temple. They knew
perfectly well where the Jewish Altar formerly stood, and they knew also that the
Temple stood to the westward of it ; but the necessities of their liturgy forced them
to turn to Mecca when they prayed, and they could not consequently re-erect
it on its original site. They therefore pivoted their mosque E] Aksa, which
they intended to be a reproduction of the Temple, on the same Altar, but turned
its axis towards the south instead of the west, as the Jews had done in former
times, and thus, as they thought, combined the merits of the sanctuary at
Jerusalem with those of that at Mecca.

1 Ant. xv. 11, 5.

2 De Edificiis, b. v. c. vi. See Appendix.

Chap. II.

AUTHORITIES.

There are numerous other indications spread through the writers from
the fourth to the fourteenth centuries of no great value individually, but
which, when taken with those above enumerated, make up a ball so complete,
“ totus teres atque rotundus,” that it rolls pleasantly along the path of truth,
and is not stopped by any inequalities or unnecessary friction.

We shall have frequent opportunities of referring to these written authorities
in the sequel, and of estimating their value or defects. Had they sufficed, the
problem would have long ago been solved by such men as Lightfoot and others
who were perfectly familiar with all that had been written on the subject.
But in themselves they have not been found sufficient, and the advantage we have
now over these earlier restorers, is the possession of correct topographical know-
ledge, which has only recently become available. In this respect the Ordnance
Survey of the Haram area, executed by a party of British sappers, under the direc-
tion of Captain (now Major) Wilson, in 1864-5, leaves little to be desired. There
seems to be no doubt that it is as absolutely correct as anything of the sort can be,
but it has two defects which detract considerably from its utility for our present
purpose. In the first place, it is, as already pointed out, engraved on too small a
scale — l-500th of the real size, or 4T66 feet to 1 inch ; and on such a scale
it is extremely difficult to obtain any dimension you are looking for with the
accuracy that might be desirable. Another defect, for architectural purposes,
which it has in common with all ordnance surveys, is that no dimensions are
figured upon it. Every measurement must be obtained from the scale, and that
is more difficult than can well be understood by anyone who has not tried it. In
the first place, the scale is not one ordinarily in use in this country, and when
you do get a foot or any other measure divided into 500 parts, you find that it
does not agree with the paper scale. In copper-plate printing the paper is
damped, and, when it dries, shrinks 2 or 3 per cent, more or less ; and even when
you get an ivory scale engraved from the paper scale, it does not give correct
measurements for different sheets of the same survey, nor in different hygrometric
states of the atmosphere. The answer the surveyors make to these complaints is to
refer you to the paper scale on each sheet. There, however, the smallest division
of the scale is 10 feet; smaller subdivisions are hardly possible, and are soon worn
out if an attempt is made to use them. All this tends to make the task difficult,
and may lead to slight inaccuracies ; but as the plan of the Temple adopted in this
work has been drawn on the Ordnance Survey, and not from dimensions taken
from it, the errors cannot be of any such extent as to invalidate the conclusions
arrived at.1

1 The praise of accuracy must be understood as
applying only to the work of Major Wilson, which was
engraved at the Ordnance Office at Southampton. The
surveys of Captain W arren, though equally executed by

sappers, have only been published in rough lithographs
executed from tentative drawings sent home by him
during the progress of the survey, or in a popular manner,
and on a small scale, in a work entitled The Recovery of

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Pakt I.

In addition to the assistance obtained from the written descriptions of the
Temple, and the local indications of the surveyors, there is still a third class of
evidence which is almost as important as either of these two, for obtaining a
correct idea of the form or appearance of the building. This is derived from con-
siderations of architectural propriety and commonsense. The experience of the
last 300 years has shown that the “ litera scripta ” alone is not sufficient to enable
even the most learned men to arrive at correct conclusions on the subject; while
the experience of the last half-century, during the greater part of which
Oatherwood’s surveys have been available, and access has been allowed to the
localities, seems to indicate that local knowledge rather tends to aggravate the
differences between the restorers. Neither alone, nor even together, do these
seem to suffice, and in order to obtain any satisfactory results, it seems
indispensable that the architect should intervene to supply what is inevitably
omitted from all mere verbal descriptions, and to utilise those local indications
which, in the present instance, are unfortunately scant and not always easily
recognisable. More than this. Just as the historian is obliged to select, out of
a number of conflicting narratives, those incidents wffiich appear to him either
those most probable or most in accord with the known circumstances of the
case, the architect must take upon himself the responsibility of deciding, where
conflicting statements are made, either by the same authors or by different
authorities, which shall be accepted ; and when anything manifestly absurd is put
forward, he must be allowed to reject, if he cannot explain it. When, for instance,
the text of Ezekiel as it now stands represents the cells surrounding the Temple
as constructed so that neither light nor air could ever reach them, it may safely
be concluded that this was not so, and that the text is either corrupt or, at present
at least, unintelligible. In the same manner, when Josephus says, these same cells
were only 5 cubits square on plan, but 20 cubits in height, we may reject the
statement as certainly erroneous ; and the more so that in this instance we can
detect the motive of the misstatement. Again, when the Talmud states that there
was an upper room over the Temple 20 cubits broad, 40 high, and 60 in length, and
that it was approachable only by a ladder of wood, we may, even if we admit the
credibility of the first part of the statement, reject the latter as wholly improbable.
Such instances are, unfortunately, only too common, as we shall see in the sequel ;
and it is only by the exercise of architectural criticism that they can be eliminated,
and what remains co-ordinated into a harmonious whole. We must be allowed to
assume that the architects who built the successive Temples at Jerusalem, especially
those in Herod’s time, were not incompetent blunderers, but that they knew

Jerusalem, in 1860. As neither of these make any pre-
tension to scientific accuracy, Major Wilson has under-
taken to republish his Notes, incorporating Captain
Warren’s work with his own. The difficulty, however, of
reconciling the two has been so great that the task has been

indefinitely delayed, and may not improbably have to be
abandoned. We know roughly the result of Captain
Warren’s three years’ exploration, but in a form which,
to say the least of it, is extremely unsatisfactory, and
which can, in no instance, be implicitly relied upon.

Chap. II.

AUTHORITIES.

something of their business, and were capable of arranging the various parts of
their buildings so as to be convenient for the purposes for which they were
designed, and also of putting them together so as to form a harmonious and
dignified design.

Where, it appears to me, most of the restorations hitherto proposed have
broken down is because these principles have not been kept steadily in view. In
some instances the statements of Josephus, or of the Talmud, have been rejected
bodily without due consideration, or adopted literally without discrimination, and
no one, so far as I know, has put himself in the position of an architect designing a
building, and tried, with the aid of the facts and hints that are available, to design
such a building as the Temple of the Jews really must have been in the days of its
magnificence. When, however, all the three classes of evidence just enumerated
are duly tested and co-ordinated, they will, I believe, be found quite sufficient to
enable us to restore not only the plan but the elevation of the Temple with very
considerable accuracy. When the details gathered from surrounding buildings
of the same age are added, we may, I believe, realise its appearance as nearly as
we can, that of almost any other now ruined building of antiquity.

In so far as the plan is concerned, there are not any essential points that
appear to me open to dispute. It may be that the central point of the altar north
and south is 66^ or even 67 cubits distant from the inner face of the Avail of the
court instead of 66, as I have placed it, for reasons given farther on. East and
west its position is fixed within inches by the central line of the Huldah Gateway.
It may be also that I have not quite understood the arrangements of the Chel, in
front of the Court of the Women ; but nothing hangs on these, and beyond them
every dimension, in plan, seems capable of almost mathematical proof. The
elevation admits of considerably greater latitude of interpretation, but even here
the possible A'ariations are not so great as might at first sight appear. The
design represents a building 120 cubits in height, made up of parts, for every one
of which an authority can be quoted, or a logical reason given ; while it furnishes
an answer to every question raised tending towards the solution of the problem.
I am far from suggesting that it is tlce answer, or the only one that can be given,
but as it is an answer, and in accordance with all we know of the utilitarian or
artistic exigencies of the building, it may, perhaps, be allowed to stand till a
better is suggested.

Whether such an amelioration is likely to be soon suggested or not, will
depend on circumstances ; first, whether any new discoveries are likely to be
made on the spot, which may tend to modify the views now put forward ; and,
secondly, whether any one with more skill is likely soon to take the amount of
pains requisite to investigate the problem more thoroughly. The latter con-
tingency may arise any day, but my impression is that we really know all that is
essential of the character of the Haram area. The doubtful features have less
hearing on the Jewish antiquities than on those of the Christian epoch, which

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Paet I.

form the third and concluding part of this work, and are not consequently
referred to in this one. Such as they are, they can have very little influence on
our reasoning, in so far as the Temple itself at least is concerned.

On the whole, it appears to me that the problem is ripe for decision. The
literary materials have been sufficiently discussed, the local features examined with
sufficient care, and the architectural style of the age known as nearly as we shall
ever probably know it now. It seems, therefore, that the time has arrived when
the whole may be put together in a manner to challenge a decision, and if this is
so, it would be a cause for regret if the task were any longer delayed. With all
our additional knowledge, it certainly seems expedient that an attempt at least
should he made, to replace the wild dreams that have hitherto been prevalent
regarding the buildings in the Haram area, by something more substantial and
more in accordance with the results of recent researches.

Chap. III.

JEWISH MEASURES.

CHAPTER III.

JEWISH MEASURES.

Before proceeding to describe tbe plans and elevations of the various Temples of
the Jews, it is indispensable that we should try at least to obtain a clear under-
standing with regard to the length of the cubits or other measures employed by
the various authors on whose writings we depend for our knowledge of their
dimensions. Fortunately this is by no means difficult; and if restorers had only
taken the pains to ascertain this beforehand, most of the confusion that exists
on the subject might long ago have been avoided.

It is, I believe, admitted by all that the Jews employed two kinds of cubits —
one equal to about 15 English inches; the other, called a cubit and a hand-
breadth, to about 18 of our inches ; and, generally, it is understood that the smaller
cubit was used for measuring the vessels or metal work of the Temple, the larger
for the stone work or generally for the building. There was also the Babylonian
cubit of 21 inches, which has been supposed to have been brought back after the
Captivity, and to have been then employed in the erection of the Temple.

This variety of measures has unfortunately allowed a wide margin for enabling
restorers to adapt the statements of authors to their theories, and for reconciling
those that appear conflicting. The Rabbis, for instance, try to make it appear
that the measures of the Temple given by Josephus and those in the Talmud are
practically the same ; 400 Greek cubits of 18 inches, they say, are equal to 600 feet,
while 500 Jewish cubits of 15 inches are only 625, a difference so small that it
may safely be overlooked ; 1 while those who want to extend the area of the
Temple use the larger cubit in support of their conclusions.2 All these discussions
may, however, be fairly set aside, and need not be entered on here, for the
simple reason that, whatever cubit may be adopted, it must be applied to all
buildings and all parts of the building, and not, as the Rabbis propose, only to
the principal measurements and not to the details. This will become quite
clear as we proceed, inasmuch as all our authorities — the Bible, the Talmud,
and Josephus — when speaking of the same place, always use the same measure-
ments where it is a place or thing tbe dimensions of which were sacred
and known. The only exception to this is where Josephus, with his tendency

1 Constantine l’Empereur, Middoth, p. 36.

1 Captain Warren not only uses the large cubit, but
assumes that, when Josephus said feet — which, by the
way, he never did in so far as the plans are concerned —

he meant cubits ! and on these two assumptions he bases
his restoration of the Temple. Athenaeum, February
1875 ; Quarterly Reports, Palestine Exploration Fund,
1875, pp. 97 et seqq.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

to exaggerate, uses cubits when the real dimension is only the same number
of feet; as, for instance, in describing the altar, he says it was 50 cubits square
and 15 cubits high,1 whereas, as we shall see in the sequel, it was 33 cubits or
49^ feet across and 10 cubits or 15 feet in height ; and he indulges in the same
mode of exaggeration in describing the gates and various parts of the Temple.
When, however, any of the authorities speak of the general dimensions of the Holy
House, of the Holy of Holies, the Holy Place, and, generally, of the sacred
measurements of the Temple, there is no variation that would lead us to suspect
that any other measure was employed than the cubit of 18 inches.

This will be made so clear from the annexed table of the principal dimensions
of all the Temples, from the Tabernacle in the Wilderness to the Temple of Herod,
that it hardly appears necessary to argue the question further, at present at least,
or till some argument is brought forward to invalidate the conclusion it inevitably
leads to, which has not hitherto been done. It will of course be understood that,
where they can be identified as describing the same parts, the figures in the first
column, which give the dimensions of the Tabernacle, are exactly one-half of
those of Solomon’s or of any other subsequent Temple.

Temple of

Dimensions of the Temples of the Jews.

Tabernacle
of Moses.

Temple of
Solomon.

Temple of
Ezekiel.

Zerubbabel

according

Herod ac-
cording to

to Bible.

Josephus.

Talmud.

Cubits.

Length

Holy of Holies . <

Width

Height

Length

Holy place . <

Width

Height

Porch <

Depth

Width

Verandah ....

Width

. ,

Chambers ....

Width

5(?)

5 2

Chamber and gallery

Width

124

f Length

100

Total of Temple .

Width

Height

100

Inner courts ....

[ Length
Breadth

100

200

100

200

100

200

100

200

150

187

135

Outer courts ....

Length

100

333

400

500

| Breadth

. ,

100

too

100

400

500

Sanctuary ....

| Length

3000

j Breadth

3000

Note — The figures printed in italics are obtained by calculation or from other authorities.

Though this table is sufficient to show that all the authorities, when speaking
of the same thing, used the same cubit, it does not tell us what the exact length of
that cubit was. This, however, we are fortunately able to obtain by a reference
to the Ordnance Survey, and though the answer may not be so absolutely correct

1 B. J. v. 6.

2 This refers only to the lower storey.

Chap. III.

JEWISH MEASURES.

as that obtained from the measurement of the Parthenon, for instance, it is quite
sufficiently near for all the purposes of our present investigation. In order,
however, to explain how this result is to be obtained, it is necessary to anticipate
a little what is to follow, and to point out that one of the most prominent
characteristics of Jewish architecture was their love of even numbers, as indeed
the table just quoted is sufficient to prove, and their employment of one definite
integer in every part of their buildings. In the Tabernacle, for instance, 5 cubits
was the dimension chosen, and every measurement was a multiple of this. In the
Temple it was 10 cubits, and every measurement, consequently, results in some
multiple of this number. So much is this the case that, when any calculation or
protraction leads to any less terminal number than ten, we may feel sure we are
on a wrong path, and must try back till we obtain an even result, unless indeed
it happens, as we can see in some rare instances, that there is some good reason
why it should be otherwise.

When we come to apply to the Ordnance Survey the measurements derived
from the authorities, as well as those obtained by calculation from this doctrine
of equal integers, we arrive at some very unexpected results. When, for instance,
Josephus tells us that the Temple was an exact square, measuring a stadium or
600 G-reek feet each way, we should expect its southern face to measure 607
feet 6 inches English, as the difference between the English and Greek foot is
ascertained to be lj per cent.1 On the Survey, however, the distance measures
only 585 feet English, or 390 cubits ; ten less than we were led to expect, even
on the assumption that the cubit was composed of 18 English instead of 18 Greek
inches. The distance north and south, however, measures exactly 600 English
feet, or 400 cubits. So, too, when we obtain from the authorities, or from
calculation, that the inner court of the Temple measured 200 cubits by 150, and
the outer courts or porticos 100, 90, 70, 60, 30, and so on, and come to protract
these on the Ordnance Survey, we find that a cubit of 18 inches English meets all
the difficulties of the case with as much accuracy as can be obtained from a plan
without figured dimensions.

It may, of course, be only an accidental coincidence, and if anyone likes to
assume that it is, he is at liberty to do so, as the mathematical proof of the fact
is difficult, if not impossible. I can only say that the result of my researches
has been to leave, on my mind, the conviction that, as in the Tabernacle every
dimension was set out with a reed of 5 cubits, so in the Temple every important
dimension wras set out with a reed of 10 cubits, and that the reed used for the
latter building measured 180 English inches within so small a fraction that its
presence cannot be detected on the Ordnance Survey.2

1 Penrose, Principles of Athenian Architecture, folio,
Murray, 1851.

2 I am afraid my friend Piazzi Smyth may seize on
this as a confirmation of his theory that his Pyramid

inches are identical with English inches. My impression,
however, is that it is, in this instance at least, a coin-
cidence, and nothing more.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

CHAPTER IV.

THE TABERNACLE.

It would be difficult in the whole range of architectural history to find a more
curious or complete example of Darwinian development than that exemplified in
the various changes the Temple of the Jews underwent when restored or rebuilt
at various intervals during the long period of its existence. Originally a tent,
possibly evolved out of a sacred tent of the Midianites, it was rebuilt by Solomon
with only such differences as were indispensable in changing a portable structure
of wood and cloth into a permanent stone building, with increased dimensions. It
is described by Ezekiel as practically the same building, with such additions as in
his vision seemed necessary to render it the perfect ideal of a Jewish temple ; and it
was rebuilt, by Herod, practically the same in plan, but with such further additions
as were indispensable to make it worthy of its more magnificent surroundings,
and to provide for the accommodation of the Gentiles, who had become an impor-
tant element in this quasi-Roman city. Yet in all these changes, the building
remained essentially the same. The Jews never forgot or overlooked their belief
that the dimensions of the Tabernacle were divinely revealed to Moses, and were
as essential a part of their ritual as any other of the ceremonial observances
ordained in the Pentateuch. It would have been sacrilege to alter what was
originally ordered, but it was permitted to add what would render the structure
more worthy of its sacred purposes, provided the sacred elements in the design
remained unchanged.

It is this curious unchangeableness in all essentials, combined with such
apparent differences in external forms, which not only makes up the great interest
of the building, but which alone enables us to understand its design and arrange-
ments. Except the descriptions of the Tabernacle, none of those of the succeeding
Temples are sufficiently complete to be intelligible by themselves, but when taken
as parts of a series, in conjunction with what preceded or followed, there is very
little difficulty in understanding them, and in many instances of proving the case
with almost mathematical precision. What, in fact, has rendered the restorations
of the Temple hitherto attempted so unsatisfactory is that the question has not
been looked at from this point of view. Restorers have taken up the Bible,
or the Talmud, or Josephus, and tried out of their descriptions to restore the
Temples of Solomon or of Herod, without much reference to what these authors
said about the other buildings of the series, and it is consequently not to be

Chap. IV.

THE TABERNACLE.

wondered at if many points still remain in doubt. In like manner, it has been
too much the habit to consider Ezekiel’s Temple as a dream, nearly unintelli-
gible, and as having very little bearing on the question of the form of the other
Temples. It is, it must be confessed, more difficult to understand it, than the
description of the others, because the Temple he saw in a vision never had any
existence in reality, and is only a record from memory of what had existed
before the Captivity, embellished with such additions and improvements as he hoped
might be introduced, if it ever was re-erected. Notwithstanding this, a really
profound Hebrew scholar might, by a retranslation of the text, make more of it
than has hitherto been done, but to do it well, he must also be an architect. The
Rabbis, we may assume, were at least scholars, and were bent most anxiously not
only on understanding, but on utilising Ezekiel’s description ; yet, as we shall
see in the sequel, almost all the great mistakes they fell into arose from their
inability to realise the exact meaning of the prophet’s words.

If any one wishes to realise how little skill or commonsense has hitherto
been applied to this subject, he has only to refer to the restoration of the
Tabernacle which has been usually accepted for the last two centuries. It is hardly
worth while to enquire who first suggested it, but certainly since Augustin Calmet’s
time (1722) it has been seriously put forward as a scientific solution of the
question, and every pictorial Bible and every treatise on Jewish antiquities has
adopted it without question — nor does it seem to have occurred to any one to find
fault with it. According to this scheme, the Tabernacle was a wooden box, 30 cubits
long by 10 cubits wide, and 10 cubits in height, open at one end, and roofed by
curtains thrown across it like a pall over an open coffin. Yet such a restoration
seems impossible. In the first place, it does not accord with the description in
the Book of Exodus, but more so because it is absolutely opposed to common-
sense ; and, as said above, we are not justified in assuming that those who designed
it were fools, but it is quite evident that, if it were so constructed, it would have
been better without any roof at all. If any one will only try, or even think,
he will find that it is impossible to stretch a linen curtain across such an open
space of 15 feet, without it sagging in the centre, so that every drop of rain that
fell upon it, must fall through, and heaping rams’ skins and badger skins upon it 1
would only make it worse. Their weight, especially when wet, would only make
it sag more, and they would act as sponges to retain any drops that might other-
wise in a tempest be blown away or escape.

Many who have accepted this theory without thinking have probably done
so on the idea that no rain falls in the Desert. This, however, seems far
trom being the case, for though we have no observations extending through
the whole year, Major AVilson records,2 during his short stay there, that rain

1 Exodus xx. 14. s Meteorological Notes in Wilson’s Account of the Survey, pp. 237 et seqq.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Pakt I.

fell at Ed Deir on four days in December, and on three days in January and two
days in February at Feiran. The amount was small, but one-third of an inch
fell in one day at Feiran. The peninsula is, however, occasionally visited by
violent storms called seils by the Arabs, which are accompanied by torrents
of rain.1 Snow also is recorded as falling there in December, which indeed
we might expect from Josephus’ statement that the Tabernacle was provided
with a curtain in front to protect it from snow,2 which at least shows that its
designers were not indifferent to the effect of weather on the structure. It is
difficult, of course, even to guess whether the climate was the same in the time
of the Exodus as now. But from the apparent greater fertility of the spot
then, it may be that the rainfall was greater than at present. Even now, however,
the rainfall is sufficient to require protection against its effects, and if the
Tabernacle had a roof at all, it must have been one capable of sheltering the
interior against its effects.

It must, however, be borne in mind that the Tabernacle was not intended
for use in the Desert only, but was to accompany the Israelites in all their
wanderings towards the Promised Land. It did so, and rested during the whole
period of the Judges at Shiloh, sheltering the Ark, and containing the Urim and
Thummim,3 and all the sacred things of the Jews till the time of Saul ; 4 and though
then deprived of the Ark, it still remained the movable temple of the nation, till
a permanent abode was provided by Solomon.5 In Judea the rainfall is at least
equal to that of the central counties in England, and, as it all falls during the
winter months, is far more concentrated and violent than anything known in
this country. Consequently, any structure that was not thoroughly water-proof
would have been in Judea quite unsuited for the purposes for which the
Tabernacle was designed, and to which it was applied for at least three hundred
years.

While, therefore, the flat-roofed form may at once be rejected as impossible,
it seems by no means difficult to suggest what was the form that was actually
adopted. The Tabernacle was a tent (cr/a^ij), and, like all tents, must have had
a ridge and sloping sides. That this was the case with the Jewish Tabernacle
seems evident, because, whenever this idea is fairly grasped, all difficulty disappears
not only in reconciling all its parts with the text of the Bible, but also with all
the conditions of the problem in so far as construction and the exigencies of the
climate are concerned.6

1 One is most graphically described by the Rev.

F. W. Holland, in the Journal of the Royal Geographical
Society, vol. xxxviii. 1868.

3 Antiquities, iii. 6, 4.

3 Joshua ix. 27 ; xviii. 1.

4 1 Samuel iv. 22.

5 1 Kings iii. 15 ; 2 Chron. i. 3.

6 I believe I was the first to propose this solution, in

the article “ Temple,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible,
in 1863 ; and as this seems to be generally admitted, 1
may some day get credit for it. At all events, it has now-
been fourteen years before the public, and no one has
pointed out any error in it; and it has been introduced
into several treatises, sometimes with acknowledgment,
sometimes without, but in no instance that I am aware
of has any attempt been made to refute it.

Chap. IT.

THE TABERNACLE.

The descriptions of the Tabernacle in the Book of Exodus 1 and in the para-
phrase of it in Josephus, are so full and so clear that there never has been
anv difficulty in restoring the walls of the building, nor of ascertaining its
dimensions. It was a rectangle, 30 by 10 cubits, which was again subdivided into
two parts. An inner — the Holy of Holies — a cube of 10 cubits. The Holy Place
measured 20 by 10 cubits on plan, and with the same height of 10 cubits to the
top of the boards. This inner rectangle was surrounded by a verandah or

6 10 20 30 40 50 Cubits.

| ' ^ 1 I — f T""'— I T T 1

io so 3o 40 50 Go 70 75 Feet.

1.— Plan of the Tabernacle.

porch 5 cubits wide, making the whole plan 20 by 40 cubits, or 30 by 60 feet.
It is not easy to ascertain whether any and, if any, what parts of this verandah
were enclosed. Judging from the analogy of Solomon’s Temple, which was
surrounded by small chambers, apparently for the accommodation of the priests
employed in the Temple service, it may have been that this verandah was — at
night at least — enclosed on all three sides, and probably permanently so at the
west end, where two walls are mentioned in the Bible as existing in the structure.2

Exodus xxv., xxvi. and xxxvi.

2 Exodus xxvi. 27.

EAKLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

There is some little difficulty regarding the bars which connected the boards
together.1 According to Josephus, there was only one row of bars upon the
sides, six bars, of 5 cubits each, screwed together at their ends, and one bar of
10 cubits at the west end.2 These were placed, probably, at half the height, or
5 cubits from the ground. This is a singularly appropriate and easily intelligible
arrangement, and may have been that which was adopted, though it can only
be reconciled with that described in the Bible by assuming some errors or imper-
fection in the text as it now stands. Literally, it seems to be said there, that there
were four rows of jointed bars on either side, each 6 cubits long, and one row
in the middle, running the whole length. Considering how carefully each board
was provided with sockets and tenons, live rows of bars, one above another, are
so extremely improbable that I feel inclined to suggest that the five bars of
the Bible are the same as the six of Josephus — their length would be the same,
or 30 cubits — and that the middle bar is the ridge pole, which may be said to
be “the middle bar in the midst of the boards” (verse 28). I admit that this
theory cannot be maintained without doing considerable violence to the text as
it stands, especially as regards the place in which the middle bar is mentioned ;
but I know no other way of reconciling the two authorities ; and as nothing
really depends upon it, it is hardly worth while pursuing the question farther.
It does not in any way affect the form and arrangements of the Tabernacle
itself, and nothing at all analogous to these bars occurs in any of the subsequent
Temples.

The question, however, of the ridge pole is one of the greatest difficulties —
though it is only a negative one — of this restoration. If the Tabernacle was a
tent, it must have had a ridge pole, for it would be nearly impossible to stretch
a rope east and west for 40 or even for 30 cubits without its sagging in
the centre so as to produce a disagreeable effect; not indeed so absurd or so
inconvenient as if the roof were flat, as is generally assumed, but still sufficiently
so as to be very undesirable. There were, we are told (verse 37) five pillars in
front, and it is easy to conceive the centre one of these being raised to the full
height of 15 cubits, and even a second of the same height at the distance of
5 cubits behind that. In like manner, it is easy to understand that the two
central boards in the rear may each have been carried up to a height of 15 cubits.
Even supposing this done, however, we have still a ridge 30 cubits long to
support, and this would require at least one post, more probably two posts
of 15 cubits each, while of all this there is no mention either in the Bible
or in Josephus.

As we shall presently see, precisely the same difficulty occurs with reference
to the Temple. If there were pillars on its floor, they are so indistinctly

1 As all the arguments for the reconstruction of the

Tabernacle have been carefully gone into by me in
Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, vol. iii. pp. 1450, etseqq.

sub voce “ Temple,” those wanting further information
on the subject are referred to the article in question.

2 Ant. iii. 6, 3.

Chap. IV.

THE TABERNACLE.

mentioned in the Bible that no one has — so far as I know — ventured to introduce
them. Their existence is, nevertheless, nearly, if not quite, certain. The roof
could not have been supported without them, any more than the ridge of the
Tabernacle could have been. It seems, in fact, just one of those cases where the
constructive necessities of the building must be considered as supplying what the
written authorities have omitted to mention. The writers seem to have taken for
granted that every one knew these supports were, and must have been, there,
and, as mere mechanical pieces of construction, they did not deem it necessary
to include them in their description of the glories of the buildings.

With that curious love of numerical similarities which characterised the
Jewish Temple builders in all ages, every dimension of the Tabernacle, either
in plan or height, was either 5 cubits or a multiple of that measure, with only
two exceptions. The curtain was 28, the half-curtain 14 cubits, and for a
very evident reason, when it is pointed out. The half-width of the Tabernacle

2. — Diagram Section of Tabernacle.

was 10 cubits; the height of its roof, as shown in the annexed diagram, was also
10 cubits, and the hypothenuse of the right-angled triangle formed by these two
dimensions was 14 cubits, nearly; thus 102+ 102= 200, while 1 42 = 196 is practically
the same, in tent building at least. This was for the inner curtain. The outer was
30 cubits long, so that 1 cubit hung down as a fringe on either side; and in the
same manner, when all the inner curtains, which were 4 cubits wide, were joined
together, they made two curtains of 20 cubits each, which fitted the length of
the Tabernacle as exactly as the 28 cubits did the width ; but the outer curtains
were eleven in number, or 44 cubits together, and, when joined, were six and
five, or 24 and 20 cubits each, so as to break joint with the lower curtains at the
central junction, and to hang down 2 cubits at either end. The lengths of the
curtains of rams’ and badgers’ skins are not mentioned, but my impression is that
they only covered the two inner apartments, and measured consequently 20 cubits
by 14 or, it may be, 15 cubits, as the place where leakages might most be expected
was where the curtains rested on the top of the board. Over the verandah the
two curtains were amply sufficient. Besides these external curtains, there was
“a vail of blue, and purple and scarlet, and fine twined linen, of cunning work,”

EAKLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

suspended on four pillars, probably 5 cubits in height, dividing the Holy Place
from the Holy of Holies,1 and another of the same character hung in front,
forming practically the door of the tent, while it probably was protected from
the weather by curtains similar to those used for the roof, as shown in the
woodcut (No. 3), which, with what has been said above, are probably quite
sufficient to explain the general appearance and arrangement of this celebrated
portable Temple of the Jews.

The dimensions of the court in which the Tabernacle stood are fortunately
given in the Bible with perfect precision. It was 100 cubits east and west, by
50 wide in the contrary direction, and it was surrounded by a screen of fine
twined linen, 5 cubits high, supported on pillars 5 cubits apart. Practically it
was formed of two square blocks or courts in the front ; in one of which stood the

3. — View of tijf. Tabernacle.

altar of burnt-offerings, 5 cubits square, and the laver. In the inner court stood
the Tabernacle ; unfortunately, we are not told at what distance from the inner
wall. Judging by the analogy of the subsequent Temples, it may have been slightly
nearer the western enclosure than shown in the woodcut (No. 1). I should have
been inclined to place it 5 cubits farther back, but for the difficulty of obtaining
sufficient space for the tent ropes in the rear of the building. It seems unlikely
that their pins should have been outside the enclosure ; but if this were not the
case, the Tabernacle could not well be placed farther back than 10 cubits from
the wall of fine linen that enclosed the court. The front of Solomon’s Temple was
practically identical with the line dividing the two courts — 90 + 11 = 101 cubits.

1 There is a slight discrepancy here. If the “ taches ”
mentioned in the 33rd verse are those which joined the
curtains of the roof, they divided the whole into two
twenties, while this screen was 25 cubits from the
front and 15 cubits from the rear. Those of the upper
curtains might reduce the discrepancy to 17 and 23,

but the allusion to them in the form in which it now
stands seems to be a mistake, but one of no great
importance. My impression is that the taches here
mentioned are those which suspended the vail from the
cord or bar that joined the four pillars which separated
the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies.

Chap. IY.

THE TABEENACLE.

It may have been exactly so, as the last dimension, 11 cubits, is obtained from
Herod’s Temple, and may have been 10 cubits in Solomon’s ; indeed, most
probably was so, though we have no authority for it. In Ezekiel’s Temple the
whole of the Holy House was situated within the inner court of 100 cubits
square ; but, in neither of these instances, bad the difficulties of the tent ropes to
be encountered, and in this, as in most instances, aesthetic considerations may
have been forced to succumb to constructive necessities.

It might be an interesting, though it is to be feared an unprofitable, task to
attempt a complete restoration of the Tabernacle in all its details. It, however,
is one that can scarcely be undertaken here ; in the first place, because the
Tabernacle can hardly be ranked as an architectural object in itself, and,
secondly, because it never was erected within the Haram area, to which the
objects to be described in this volume are strictly limited.

The great difficulty of a restoration is that we do not know where to look for
any contemporary suggestion. Naturally we turn first to Egypt, from which the
Israelites bad so recently returned. There is nothing, however, in the architecture
of that country that would lead us to suppose that, in historic times, the Egyptians
ever erected wooden temples ; and nothing in the thousand and one pictures they
have left us suggests tents of any sort being employed for state or festival pur-
poses. In Assyria there is much that is wooden in the style of building, and
from the bassi rilievi found there it might he possible to design a structure some-
what resembling the Tabernacle of Moses. But, after all, we could never feel
sure that we were not following out a false analogy, as the Tabernacle may have
had its origin from some sacred tent of the Arabs of Midian or some neigh-
bouring tribe ; and, till some discovery is made that will put us in the right track,
it would only be perpetuating error to attempt restoration at least in elevation.
It is essential, however, for the purposes of this work that we should obtain
correct dimensions of the Tabernacle both in plan and in elevation, which it is
fortunately not difficult to do. Their paramount importance arises from the fact
that, throughout all ages, the Jews considered the dimensions of the Tabernacle as
divinely revealed to Moses. No such revelation was vouchsafed to Solomon. All
he was commanded to do was to adopt, literally, the Tabernacle as his model ; and
this he did, merely doubling all its dimensions in order to suit them to a permanent
stone building, and neither Zerubbabel nor Herod ever dared to swerve from this
preordained design. As a consequence from this, the chapters in the Book of
Exodus, describing the Tabernacle, are more important for our present purpose
than anything recorded in the Book of Kings or of Ezra or Ezekiel. Our
knowledge of the dimensions of the Tabernacle is the foundation of all we know
of those of subsequent Temples, and must govern all attempts to restore them, in
so far at least as their plans are concerned, though the difference of material
renders the design of the Tabernacle less important for their elevations.

• E

EAIILY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

CHAPTER V.

THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON.

One of the most satisfactory consequences that result from the law of develop-
ment above alluded to is that, when we once have mastered the plan and
dimensions of the Tabernacle, we know those of the Temple with only two
necessary modifications. In order, as just mentioned, to suit it for the purpose

4. — Plan op Solomon’s Temple. 5. — Section of Solomon’s Temple, with and without Upper Room.

(Scale, 50 feet to 1 inch.) (Scale, 50 feet to 1 inch.)

of a permanent building, instead of a portable one, it was deemed necessary to
double all its dimensions ; and to these must he added the necessary thickness
of the stone walls as compared with those of canvas, which in the Tabernacle
are treated as of no breadth. With these necessary alterations, the Temple
was identical with the Tabernacle in all essential respects. Solomon himself,
indeed, tells us as much when he says, “ Thou hast commanded me to build a
temple in thy holy mount, and an altar in the city wherein thou dwellest,

Chap. V.

THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON.

in remembrance of tlie holy tabernacle which thou hadst prepared from the
beginning.” 1

The consequence of this is that, whereas we have in the Tabernacle a Holy
of Holies, a cube of 10 cubits,2 the same apartment in the Temple was a cube of
20 cubits. The Holy Place in the Tabernacle was 10 cubits broad by 20 cubits
in length. In the Temple these figures were 20 by 40 cubits, and its height

o 0 cubits,3 which is also exactly double the whole height of the Tabernacle.
The porch in the Tabernacle was 5 cubits, in the Temple 10 cubits,4 * * * and so on
throughout, in so far as the internal measurements are concerned ; but the totals
are not 40 by 80 cubits, as might at first sight be expected from this system,
but, in consequence of the necessary thickness of the walls in stone construction,
45 by 90 cubits.

The section across consequently becomes — •

Cubits.

Central chambers 20

Two walls of 5 cubits each 10

Two chambers, on the lowest storey 10

Outer walls, 2b cubits each . 5

The section west and east, in like manner, is —

Outer wall on the west

Chambers

Wall of inner Temple

Holy of Holies

Wall of separation

Holy Place

Wall of Temple

Porch

Outer wall of porch

45 cubits.

Cubits.

2J8

90 cubits.

5Ykat was the verandah in the Tabernacle became a series of small chambers
in three storeys in the Temple. The lowest was 5 cubits wide ; the next was
increased by an offset in the wall to 6 and the upper chambers to 7 cubits.ti
Their height is not given in the Bible, but it hardly admits of dispute that, with
the requisite thickness of their roofs, they make up the 20 or 21 cubits which

1 Wisdom of Solomon ix. 8.

2 1 Kings vi. 20.

3 1 Kings vi. 2.

4 1 Kings vi. 3.

The projection of 2 cubits I have given to the

towers is given wholly on architectural grounds, for

hich there is no written or direct authority, and which, if

it existed, would not be taken into account by the Jews,
as a sacred measurement. If any one, however, objects
to it as spoiling the numerical symmetry, they can be
retrenched. They are of no importance whatever except
from an architectural point of view.

6 1 Kings vi. 6.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

are necessary 1o bring up their roofs to the level of that of the Holy of Holies.
They could not have exceeded this, because otherwise they would have obscured
the “ narrow lights ” 1 that gave light to the Holy Place, and were the cause of
the wall of the Temple being raised there 10 cubits higher than that farther west.
There was, in fact, in this part of the Temple what we would call a clerestory,
which, it is easy to see, was indispensable, as light could not be introduced from
the front, as in the Tabernacle, in consequence of the existence of the enclosed
porch ; and the precious objects placed in this chamber could not have been seen
unless light was introduced in this manner.

None of those who have hitherto attempted to restore the Temple have
ventured to place pillars on its floor to support the roof. It is true they are not
directly mentioned in any of the descriptions we generally refer to, but, as just
pointed out, neither are the central pillars in the Tabernacle, which must have
been employed to support the ridge pole of that structure. No notice whatever
of these constructive details of the Tabernacle is to be found anywhere, and
it, consequently, is hardly to be wondered at, if we do not find any mention
of these pillars in the much less detailed account of the Temple. Their existence,
however, appears indispensable, in the first instance, because no cedar beams
that were available could be laid across an opening 20 cubits or 30 feet free
without sagging to an unpleasant extent, and it is most improbable that the Jews
could construct a truss that would get over the difficulty. Besides this, it is men-
tioned that Solomon made pillars of “ almug trees ” for the House of the Lord,2
and further that Hezehiah cut the gold from off the pillars in the House of the
Lord 3 to give to the Assyrians. In addition to these arguments, it may be added
that it would add very materially to the architectural effect and beauty of the
interior if pillars were introduced, especially if of richly carved cedar wood,
enriched with gold and heightened with colour. If they were introduced,
it probably would be to divide the interior into three aisles, the centre being
8 cubits, the side aisles G cubits in width from centre to centre of the columns,
which would be a more pleasing proportion than 5 to 10, as all the aisles were
of the same height, and the distance between the columns, longitudinally, would
be the same as that in a transverse direction.

The existence of these pillars rises almost to a certainty when we come to
consider the furniture of the Temple as ordered by Solomon and prepared by
Hiram. There were ten bases and ten lavers, ten tables and ten candlesticks, five
for the one side of the house and five for the other,4 plainly, as it appears, indicating
five double spaces, each of which was supplied by one of these articles ; otherwise
the arrangement seems unmeaning. The great golden candlestick, the table of
shewbread, with the altar of incense, probable stood in the central aisle. The

1 1 Kings vi. 4. 2 1 Kings x. 12. 3 2 Kings xviii. 6.

4 1 Kings vii. 23 et seqq. ; 2 Cliron. iv. 2 and 8.

Chap. Y.

THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON.

great molten sea, supported by twelve oxen, certainly stood outside in the open
court of the Temple.1 The existence, consequently, of the pillars in the interior
supplies exactly the division that was wanted for the arrangement of the
furniture, and gives not only meaning, but adds beauty, to the interior to such an
extent that their existence hardly seems doubtful, though it may be difficult to
adduce any direct authority for placing them there.

Whatever may be determined as regards the eight pillars consequently
introduced into the Holy Place, and the four that are shown in the Holy of Holies,
it is quite clear that the constructive necessities of the building imperatively
demand the existence of two pillars in the division between these two places.
More than this, if there was no upper chamber in Solomon’s Temple, these must
have been in stone, as they had to support a stone wall 30 feet in length by
15 feet in height, for which no wooden pillars would have sufficient strength. If
there was an upper chamber, this attic may have been in wrood, as it probably
was in Herod’s Temple, but even then such a mass without any apparent
support would have been an architectural solecism altogether intolerable. Their
existence consequently appears to me as certain a fact as that of the two tall
pillars in the Tabernacle to support the ridge, though there is not a hint of this
in any work we have access to.

In the section, pillars are introduced, adapted from the order found at
Persepolis, not only because it seems that best suited to the purpose so far as we
know, but also because I believe these Persepolitan pillars are merely copies of
those employed at Nineveh in nearly contemporary examples,2 and therefore
probably more closely resembled these than any we can find elsewhere. A trans-
verse beam has also been introduced at two-thirds of their height, in the first place,
because such tall wooden pillars 45 feet in height could hardly stand without
some such lateral tie, but also because it repeats in a pleasing manner, archi-
tecturally, the beam or entablature which supported the attic at the separation
between the two apartments. Both constructively and artistically, it appears
indispensable, though, like many of the minor details of the building, its
existence is hardly capable of proof.

So far, therefore, as the body of the house is concerned, there seems very little
margin for doubt or for discrepancy of opinion ; but when we turn to the porch, its
peculiarities are not so easily disposed of. Its width was internally 10 cubits east
and west, by 20 cubits, “ according to the breadth of the house ” 3 and the thickness
of the walls, whether divided as I have done or in any other manner, were certainly
such as, when taken together, made up the 90 cubits required for the whole length.

Neither the height nor the external width is given in the Book of Kings,
and in the Chronicles the latter dimension is given as 120 cubits,4 which seems

1 2 Chron. iv. 10. 2 Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Ptestored, pp. 271 et neqq.

3 1 Kings vi. 3. 1 2 Chron. iii. 4.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

undoubtedly to be an exaggeration by duplication, though it is also that given by
Josephus.1 But Josephus so evidently exaggerates all the dimensions of Solomon’s
Temple — like the Book of Chronicles, by doubling them — and so frequently
confounds what he knew of Herod’s Temple with what he believed of Solomon’s,
that no reliance can be placed on his statements in this respect. In fact, the only
trustworthy evidence we have on this subject is to be found in the Books of Ezra
and Esdras, where it is stated — inferentially only, it must be confessed — that its
dimensions were 60 cubits wide by 60 in height. These certainly were the
dimensions inscribed in a rescript by Cyrus, which the Jews seem to have
brought with them on their return from the Captivity ; and it is most improbable,
when permission was given them to rebuild their Temple, and its measurements
were detailed in the edict, that these should be any other than those which
the Assyrians had noted when they took Jerusalem, and which were found in
the record chamber at Babjdon or Ecbatana, under the circumstances detailed
in the narrative.2 It may be impossible to prove it mathematically, but every-
thing tends to show that the edict of Cyrus was based on documents he found
in the record office, and that these did describe the Temple which had existed
in Jerusalem down to the Captivity. It is, besides, an extremely probable
dimension. In Herod’s time the Jews accomplished what to them was the
triumph of architectural skill when they constructed a Temple which was 100
cubits long, 100 cubits high, and 100 cubits broad, and still was not a cube.
Here they attempted the same feat with the dimension of 60 cubits, and accom-
plished it, except that one of these dimensions was internal in the older Temple,
while they were all external in the more modern one.

At the same time, if we turn back to the section of the Temple as represented
in woodcut No. 5, it is evident that, if there was an upper room to Solomon’s
temple — the existence of which I dare not doubt — it is evident that the height of
the body of the house could not have been much less than 60 cubits. By making
the roof quite flat, or the upper room a little lower, a cubit or two might have
been cut off, but practically 60 cubits were so nearly needed that there seems
little doubt this was the dimension attained for the body of the house. But even
if we admit this, and I cannot see how it could be otherwise, it may still be asked
what was the use of this lateral extension of the fa9ade. The first answer is, for
architectural effect. A facade 45 cubits wide, and 120 cubits high, would in
ancient times have been considered an impossible monstrosity. One 60 cubits
high, with that width, would be better, but still unbearable, while a square
of 60 cubits each way might be managed easily with good effect. Another
answer is that it was wanted to provide staircases to the upper apartments.
If the stairs were only to accommodate the occupants of the three rows of
little chambers, a much less magnificent arrangement would have sufficed, but

1 Ant. viii, 3, 1.

2 Ezra vi. 1 et seqq. ; 1 Esdras vi. 22 et seqq.

Chap. V.

THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON.

if there were “ upper rooms ” over the main body of the Temple, the case is
different. It certainly is said in the Bible that Solomon overlaid the upper
chambers with gold,1 and this cannot be considered as applying to the little
cells round the house, but must have reference to chambers either in the pro-
pylon or over the house itself; perhaps in both. As we shall see in the sequel,
there were almost certainly upper chambers extending over the length and
breadth of Herod’s Temple, and therefore most probably over this one. Josephus
is quite distinct on this subject, and if we could trust implicitly anything he says
regarding Solomon’s Temple, we should not need to argue the question any further.
“ The king,” he says, “ had contrived an ascent to the upper room ” (vnepatov oTkov,)
“ of the Temple constructed in the thickness of the wall, for it had no large door at
the east end, as the lower house, but was entered on each side by small doors.” 2
If this was so, and I can hardly see how it can be disputed, the whole becomes
easily intelligible. As, however, the walls in the upper part of the Temple were
certainly not more than 2 or 3 cubits thick, the idea of a stair in them is, of
course, absurd, though it is thus that the Talmud also understands it.3 The
extended faqade was wanted for these stairs, and also to stop the building in the
rear, which, if it had a triangular roof, may have reached a height of 60 cubits,
as shown in the section ; even without that, this could have been effected by
raising the height of the upper room internally by a very few cubits. To all
these points we shall have to return when describing Herod’s Temple, which was
only an enlarged copy of Solomon’s ; when all this will become clearer. It is
only necessary to allude to it here, and judgment may for the present be left in
suspense, but, according to the law of development, anything that existed in
one stone temple ought to be found in all the others, and as the upper room
almost certainly existed in the last, it ought also to be found in the first.

Before leaving this branch of the subject, it may be as well to point out
that, if the dimensions of Solomon’s Temple were as just described, they were
much more pleasing architecturally than those adopted when it was rebuilt
by Herod. A building 100 cubits wide, 100 cubits high, and only 100 cubits
long, is necessarily stumpy, and deficient in poetry of proportion. One 60 by
60 cubits, and 90 cubits in length, is far more pleasing in proportion, and
may have been a more beautiful, though a less magnificent, building ; so much
so, indeed, that this proportion would probably have been adopted in Herod's
time, were it not that there was no room for extension westward, from the
nature of the cliff on which it stood, and also that there was no excuse for
extending the internal sacred dimensions, which were adhered to throughout.

The little chambers that surrounded the Temple, on three sides at least,
have long been a stumbling-block to restorers. Nothing like them is known
to have existed anywhere except in the Birs Nimroud,4 and there the analogy

1 2 Ckron. iii. 9. 2 Aut. viii. 3, 2. 3 Middoth iv. .5.

See my History of Architecture, last edition, vol. i. p. 153, woodcut 48.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

is far from perfect ; and neither their use nor their number is anywhere specified
with sufficient exactness to obviate difficulties. G-enerally it is assumed
they were ninety in number, ranged in three storeys of thirty each, but on
very insufficient authority, as it appears to me. Their number is not given
either in the Books of Kings or Chronicles ; and in Ezekiel it is merely said
that they were in three storeys and thirty in order 1 (query altogether), and
they are called side chambers, as if they did not exist at either end. They
certainly did not on the east. In fact,, the only really distinct description we
have of them is in the Talmud, which specifies, in apparent accordance with
Ezekiel, fifteen only on each side, and eight at the west end, making thirty-
eight in all.2

Josephus’ account, which is that which has been generally followed, is far from
being distinct. He first states that the chambers were thirty in number,3 and then
gives their measurements — 5 cubits in breadth, as many in length, but 20 cubits
in height.4 The last dimension is undoubtedly that of the three storeys together ;
and if erroneous, so may the second one be, which is that which involves the
necessity for the ninety. In the description of the Temple in the ‘ Wars of the
Jews ’ he merely says there were a great many of them, and repeats his error that
they were each 20 cubits high, making altogether GO cubits.5 Everything,
however, that Josephus says about Solomon’s Temple is so unsatisfactory that we
must fall back on the account in the Talmud, which is the only one that is
consistent with commonsense. A series of ninety little rooms, 5 or 6 cubits square
— 7^ or 9 feet — and about the same in height, and each having a thoroughfare,
is an arrangement that would not be tolerated in our meanest prisons, and as
residences for priests it would be impossible. If, however, they were 12 or 15
cubits in length, the case would be different ; and this seems to be the least
dimension that is admissible. Even then the gallery or verandah that was
introduced in subsequent Temples would have been required to render them
fit for their purposes. In Solomon’s time the architects seem to have been
more bent on copying literally the forms of the Tabernacle than on adapting
the new building to the uses to which, under the altered circumstances of the
case, it was to be applied. On the whole, my impression is that it is much
more probable that there were only thirty chambers — three storeys of five each
on each side of the Temple, and eight behind — than that there were ninety
little cells, which were utterly unfit for human habitations, or for any other
purpose to which we can fancy they may have been appropriated.

To all these points we shall have occasion to recur again in describing
Herod’s Temple, and will then be in a position to understand their bearing better
than we can at the present stage of the enquiry. It may consequently be
expedient not to dwell longer on them at present, but to pass on to other more
immediate considerations.

1 Ezekiel xli. 6.

2 Middoth iv. 3,

3 Ant. viii. 3, 2.

4 Ant. viii. 3, 2.

5 B. J. v. 5, 5.

Chap. Y.

THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON.

It would be extremely interesting if, in addition to these facts regarding the
dimensions and outline of this celebrated building, anything could be adduced that
would convey an idea of the external appearance of the building or of the style
of ornamentation adopted in carrying it out. I am afraid, however, that no
materials exist for this at present. Looking at the plan and general arrangements,
the first impulse is of course to turn to Egypt. Its plan with a great propylon at
first sight does resemble the usual form of Egyptian temples ; and as Solomon had
married one of the daughters of the Pharaoh of that day, any apparent improba-
bility that it was so is removed. It appears, however, that the architects of the
Temple were thinking very much more of the Tabernacle, which was certainly
not of Egyptian origin, than of anything on the banks of the Nile when they
made their design ; and the propylon may really have been only a utilitarian
development, which was necessary if things were as above represented. If
affinities really governed the design, I should be inclined to look for them more
in the valley of the Euphrates, or among the neighbouring Semitic peoples
who inhabited Tyre and Sidon, and probably some parts of Arabia. But of the
architecture of these nations, we know absolutely nothing, while no Assyrian
temple has yet been brought to light so nearly of Solomon’s age as to afford us
any hint for our guidance. When we have completed what we have to say
with regard to Herod’s Temple, it may be worth while to revert to the subject.
At present there is nothing known that bears directly on the design, and
whatever, consequently, is said must mainly be based on conjectures which can
hardly be verified.

In like manner, it may be as well to postpone any attempt to unravel the
mysteries connected with the pillars Jachin and Boaz till we have described the
toran or screen, which occupied the same place in Herod’s Temple which they
did in Solomon’s. It may suffice to state here, that my conviction is, that
they were not two bronze obelisks, as is generally supposed, but two pillars
supporting a screen such as exists in many temples in the East at the present
day, and which, so far as we know, may have been in use in Solomon’s
time.

No such obelisks in metal are known to have existed in front of any temple,
at any time, or in any part of the world ; and unless some hints can be obtained
from cognate examples, it seems hopeless to attempt to restore such objects from
mere verbal descriptions, especially if these descriptions are in a language of the
architectural nomenclature of which we know so little as we do of Hebrew. If
some very learned scholar would take the trouble of tracing back all the terms to
their roots, and comparing them with one another, something might be done.
The authors of the Septuagint, however, could not do it, and, instead of giving
us the corresponding words in Greek, left many of the Hebrew architectural
terms untranslated, and in the original language ; and what they could not do
when both were living languages would certainly be very difficult now, though

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

probably not beyond the reach of the acumen of modern scholarship. It has
not, however, so far as I know, been yet attempted.1

It need hardly be added that no analogies drawn from granite or stone
objects of the same age are of any use in attempting to solve the problem.
Solomon’s pillars were in metal, and their forms must have been such as were
appropriate to that material, and to that only, and consequently something very
unlike either Egyptian obelisks or Grecian or even Persepolitan pillars ; something,
in fact, quite of a different class, and of which no examples remain to our day.

One of the great advantages, however, of the system we are pursuing is that
it can be worked backwards as well as forwards. Whatever we find in Solomon’s
Temple, we are sure to find both in Ezekiel’s and in Herod’s, modified probably to
some extent, but still essentially the same. In like manner, when we find any
features in Herod’s Temple which we can understand, but which may have been
unintelligible in the earlier Temples, we may feel sure that its form and use will
throw light on all that preceded it, and may possibly clear up what was otherwise
inexplicable. When, consequently, we have described the vine-bearing screen in
Herod’s Temple, we hope to be able to throw a reflex light on even this most
puzzling problem, but must, for the causes just assigned, leave the consideration
of it for the present.

Courts of Solomons Temple.

Plate I.

From what has been said above, it seems nearly certain that the secret of
the dimensions of the Temple is to be obtained quite as much from those of the
Tabernacle by a system of duplication as from direct assertion ; and that this was
known to be so in ancient times seems evident from the fact that the writers of the
Book of Chronicles carried the system a step farther, by duplicating the heights
of the building and of the pillars, and making the one 120 instead of 60 cubits,
and the other 352 instead of 18 cubits. Be this as it may, by following out the
same system, we arrive at the conviction — abundantly confirmed by subsequent
experience — that the court in which the Temple and altar stood measured
200 cubits east and west, by 100 cubits north and south, or just double those of
the Tabernacle. At the same time, as the positions of the centre of the altar and
that of the Holy of Holies were never probably altered one inch, we have no
difficulty in allocating these two cardinal points in Solomon’s Temple from our
knowledge of their positions in Herod’s, which, as will be hereafter shown, can

1 Mr. Aldis Wright, of Trinity College, Cambridge,
is, 1 believe, engaged in compiling a vocabulary of the
Hebrew architectural terms fouud in the Old Testa-
ment. From his literary acumen and scholarship his
work may be expected to throw considerable light on
the subject. I am afraid, however, that it will not
appear in time to be of any use for this work.

2 2 Chron. iii. 15. I do not myself believe that this
35 cubits is a duplication, or applies only to the pillars,
though it certainly seems to be so stated in the Book
of Chronicles ; in the first place, because it is not
exactly twice 18 or 36 cubits. Besides, I hope to be
able to show, farther on, that 35 cubits really was the
true height of the whole screen.

Chap. V.

COURTS OF SOLOMON’S TEMPLE.

be fixed with almost absolute certainty. Their centres were apparently 116
or 117 cubits apart, so that, whenever we can fix the position of one of these,
that of the other follows as a matter of course.

As will be explained more fully hereafter, there seems no reason for
doubting that the Double Grateway, usually called that of Huldah, was
identical with the Water Grate of the Temple, which led direct to the Altar.1
Its centre line, consequently, fixed the centre of the Altar east and west ;
and as we have data for determining its position north and south with
almost equal precision, we have a fixed point from which to start in our
survey of the Temple as it was, either in Solomon’s or in Herod’s time.
Even without this, however, it might be possible to ascertain this, at least
approximately, from local indications if we knew the form of the ground
in David’s time, before he purchased the threshing-floor of Araunah. This,
however, it is difficult to do at the present day, owiug to the whole surface
of the Haram area being levelled and paved, so that, without excavation, the
form of the rock or of the original surface cannot be ascertained. The
contour plan on next page, by Captain Warren, will, however, give an idea of the
situation.2 About halfway between the city of Jerusalem and the Mount of
Olives, a tongue of land stretches towards the south. Its ridge slopes gradually
to the east and west, as well as to the south, and on the north it rises at
the rate of about 1 foot in 10 feet to the Sakhra, or sacred rock, which
partially shelters it on the north. This being so, there is not in the neighbour-
hood of Jerusalem any spot so singularly appropriate for a threshing-floor as
that I have marked by a shaded circle in the southern bend of the contour 2410
(woodcut No. 6). North of the sacred rock, it would have been in a hollow, and
on the rock itself — where some have placed it — it was impossible. No one who
has been in the East, and knows what a threshing-floor is, would dream of placing
it on a rugged peak, where oxen could not tread out the corn, and where there is
no flat surface for winnowing or sorting the grain. On the other hand, every
requisite of a threshing-floor is found in perfection in the situation just pointed
out. More than this, assuming a threshing-floor to have been there, it is the one
spot about all Jerusalem most suited for the conception of an angel standing with
a drawn sword to stay the plague, and where, if an altar was placed, it could be
better seen than it could be in any other locality. It was looked down upon
from the city on the one hand, and from the Mount of Olives on the other, and
looked up to from the valleys of Kidron and the Tyropseon, and from beyond
their junction at En Rogel. If there is another site, either in the neighbourhood
of Jerusalem or elsewhere, commanding such advantages, I do not know it, and
all that is poetic in the topography of Jerusalem has resulted from the prophetic
glance with which David saw its unrivalled advantages and used them.

Prospect of the Temple, by Dr. Lightfoot, p. 350. 2 Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 298.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

If, therefore, we knew exactly where the ridge of the hill was, we might
almost with certainty say where the Altar stood. But it certainly was not where
Captain Warren puts it. In his own woodcut plan,1 which is a reduction of the
Ordnance Survey, the rock rises to the surface between the contours 2419, 2429,
while his 2410 in the annexed plan passes at least 10 feet below it, and the
same mistake occurs where the rock rises to the surface near the Golden Gateway.

6.— Imaginary Contours op the Haram Area. (By Captain Warren.)

The fact seems to be — and Major Wilson agrees with me in this — that the brow is
very much broader than Captain Warren makes it, and the contours towards
the west are very much steeper than those shown in the last woodcut. Major
Wilson’s idea is that the plateau terminated in something like a cliff towards
the west, and consequently that the boundary wall of the Temple originally stood
nearly on the edge of a precipice.2 Till the ground is examined by excavation,

1 Recovery of Jerusalem, facing page 8.

2 In his usual facetious manner, Captain Warren
represents me as placing the Temple and Altar in a hole
(Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 315); the fact being, how-
ever, that, according to his own contours, it is on a ridge,
and at so high a level that, according to my restoration,

the floor of the Temple would be several cubits above
the summit of the Sakhra. Where he places it, the
Sakhra would be buried so deep in a mass of masonry
that it would be utterly obliterated and be neither
ornamental nor useful to anybody.

Chap. Y.

COURTS OF SOLOMON’S TEMPLE.

this must of course be, in a great measure, speculative ; but from all we now
know, the centre of the southern bend of Warren’s contour 4310 (4320 it
ought to be) is much more likely to be on the spot marked with a square
in woodcut No. 6 than in the centre of the circle. The square is about 100 feet
farther west, though at the same distance from the southern wall, in the
exact centre of the Huldah Gateway, which is the spot where, from the remains
of Herod’s Temple, we know with certainty that the Altar stood. When the
contours are adjusted as just pointed out, it is beyond all dispute the one spot
in the vicinity of Jerusalem that seems most likely to have been selected by
David, bearing in mind that it was intended subsequently to erect the Temple to
the westward of the spot first chosen for the Altar.

The arrangement of the buildings and other objects in the courts of
the Temple will be easily understood from the plan, Plate I. The Temple
itself practically occupied the whole of the western half of the great or inner
court; its front, exclusive of the projections, being probably exactly 100 cubits
from the face of the western wall. In the centre of the eastern half of this
court stood the Altar, which in Solomon’s time was 20 cubits square.1 Between
the Altar and the steps leading up to the porch of the Temple was a space
of 30 cubits, in the centre of which stood the laver, or, as it is now called,
the “brazen sea,” which was 10 cubits in diameter, and supported on twelve
oxen. A similar space existed to the eastward of the Altar, in the centre of
which stood the dukan, or place of blessing — a brazen stage 5 cubits square and
3 cubits high.2 It was from this stage that Solomon pronounced the blessing
on his people,3 and by which Joash was placed when Athaliah interfered.4
There were not, apparently, any sacred objects in the outer court ; and the
disposition of its chambers and porticos will be better understood when we
come to investigate the Temple as described by Ezekiel.

The only point that remains doubtful in the plan of these two courts
arises from the difficulty of ascertaining whether there was a wall of separation
between them, and, if so, what was its thickness. As will be seen more clearly
when we come to examine the plan of Herod’s Temple, the position of the
Altar can be fixed with almost absolute certainty in the centre of the Huldah
Gateway ; so can the outer face of the eastern wall of the Temple. The
distance between these two points on the Ordnance Survey is 155 or 156 cubits.
The internal distance, according to our authorities, was 150 cubits ; we have,
consequently, 5 or 6 cubits to spare, which we may appropriate to one outer
wall, or divide it into two, f 2 or 3 cubits each, or, in fact, deal with this
dimension as we please. The matter is not very important; but the result
I have arrived at is, that, as the level of the inner court was 10 or 12 feet

1 2 Chron. iv. 1. 2 2 Chron. vi. 13. 3 2 Chron. vi. 13. 4 2 Kings xi. 14.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

(14 steps) above that of the outer, that this was a sufficient separation, and, with
a parapet of 2 or 3 feet high, a more than sufficient protection, for the Temple
was not then a fortress,1 as it became afterwards. There probably was also an
open screen of columns with an ornamental gateway at the head of the flight
of steps, but on the whole, most probably, not a solid wall of separation.

If these views are correct, it follows inevitably, from the data afforded by
the Ordnance Survey, that this outer court was exactly 100 cubits square
internally. In the Book of Kings it is called the “ new court,” not apparently
because it was of a different age from the other, but because it was a novelty,
an innovation, in fact, in the ordinance of the Tabernacle. It was, how-
ever, almost certainly built by Solomon, and on its eastern side there was a
portico or porch, which bore his name down to the time of the destruction
of the Temple itself by Titus.2 In Solomon’s time this court certainly was the
principal entrance to the Temple, from the palace at least. It must consequently
have been on this side that there was the ascent to the Temple that so astonished
the Queen of Sheba, and at the top of the flight of stairs there may have
been an outer gateway of proportionate magnificence.

We are nowhere told whether this outer court was more or less sacred than
the inner one, but, judging from the arrangements of the subsequent Temples,
it may have been that women and strangers were not admitted to the inner
court, but only to this one. On the whole, however, my impression is that
this exclusiveness belongs to a later date than Solomon’s time, and that the
men of Israel had at least access to that part of the inner court in which the
Altar stood, but that a division was made across the inner court parallel to
the fa£ade of the Temple, and that all the space beyond that was the “ separate
place ” 3 reserved for the priesthood only.

Unfortunately we have very little to guide us in trying to form an idea of
the architectural arrangements of these courts. Josephus tells us nothing ; and
all that the Book of Kings says on the subject is that he (Solomon) built the
inner court with “ three rows of hewn stones and a row of cedar beams,” 4 and in
the following chapter the same expression is used and applied to the great court
of the palace, which is there coupled with the inner court of the Temple. This is
no doubt interesting, as proving that, as there was an inner, there must have been
an outer court, and leading also to the inference, as they are mentioned in the
same breath, that the court of the palace was not only similar to that of the
Temple, but also in all probability in juxtaposition to it. The difficulty, however,
remains how to translate the expression. It certainly was not, as some have
suggested, three courses of hewn stones and a course of timber laid like a wall-

1 Josephus, B. J. v. 5, 1.

3 Ezekiel xli. 12-14 ; xlii. 1, 10, 13.

2 Josephus, Ant. xx. 9, 7.
4 1 Kings vi. 36.

Chap. Y.

COUETS OF SOLOMON’S TEMPLE.

plate. Such a mode of building a wall is not known anywhere or at any time,
and in a plain wall the number of courses is hardly of sufficient importance,
unless their height was mentioned, to be recorded with such minuteness. The
same expression occurs in Ezra 1 and Esdras,2 as one of the important peculiarities
of the Temple which were recorded in the archives of the treasure chamber
at Ecbatana. The only explanation that occurs to me is that in this instance
it means a porch supported by three rows of pillars, thus : —

This is the more probable as we know that three sides of the outer court of
Herod’s Temple were surrounded by double-aisled cloisters arranged in this
manner, though on a larger scale, and with pillars of the Corinthian order of
his day. If this were so, it is probable that between the two courts the
colonnade was open, as represented on the plan. On the other sides the inner
row probably was interwoven with the outer wall like that of the great Stoa
Basilica of Herod's Temple.

1 1 Ezra vi. 4.

2 1 Esdras vi. 25.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

CHAPTER VI.

SOLOMON’S PALACE.

Plate I.

It may at first sight appear to be interrupting unnecessarily what we have to
say of the successive Temples at Jerusalem to interpolate here a description
of a palace. If, indeed, Solomon’s palace had been situated where that of the
Asamonean kings stood, in which Herod, and after him, King Agrippa, resided,
this would be true, as that was placed above the Xystus in the city to the westward
of the Temple, and wholly disconnected with it.1 Recent researches, however,
have gone so far to prove that the palace was situated in the south-east angle of
the Haram area that this fact seems no longer doubtful. If this is so, it is
evident that the Temple and the palace formed so essentially parts of one group
of buildings that it will be much more convenient to treat them together than
separately ; and if we can acquire a correct idea of their forms, it will make what
follows much clearer than it could be without first investigating them together.2

The fact that the Temple and palace were in immediate proximity to
one another might have been inferred from a passage in Ezekiel, had attention
been directed towards it : “ And he said unto me, Son of man, the place of my
throne, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will dwell in the midst of the
children of Israel for ever, and my holy name, shall the house of Israel no more
defile, neither they nor their kings. ... In their setting of their threshold by my
thresholds, and their post by my posts, and the wall between me and them, they
have even defiled my holy name.” 3 A passage which seems to contain not only a
distinct intimation of the contiguity of the two buildings, but a prohibition to
rebuild the palace on the same site ; an injunction which seems at a future period
to have been literally attended to. Besides this, however, there are some passages
in the Book of Nehemiah 4 which are quite unintelligible except on the assump-
tion that the two buildings were literally parts of one design.

1 Jos. Ant. xv. 11, 5 ; xvii. 10, 2 ; xx. 8, 11 ; &c.

2 When I wrote the article “ Palace,” in Smith’s

Dictionary of the Bible, I was under the impression that

Solomon’s palace was in the city, and arranged the
diagram that accompanied that article to suit that
locality. The dimensions, in so far as they are not
given in the Bible, were estimated from our knowledge
of the nearly contemporary palaces of Nineveh and

Khorsabad ; it is consequently satisfactory to find that,
though the locality was wrong, the dimensions re-
arranged exactly fit the new site that has since been
discovered to be the true one in the south-east angle
of the Haram area.

3 Ezekiel xliii. 7, 8.

4 Nehemiah iii. 21-28.

Chap. VI.

SOLOMON’S PALACE.

The material proof that this was so, and that the south-east angle of the
Haram area was one of the angles of Solomon’s palace, rests mainly on the result
of the excavations carried on with so much skill and energy by Captain Warren
on its exterior face in 1868-9. Before these were undertaken, this angle was, it
is true, one of the grandest architectural objects about Jerusalem ; standing, as it
does, on the edge of a steep slope, with a rise of between 50 and 60 feet above
the surface, and composed of stones of the largest kind, put together with a grand
and striking disregard of regularity. Still, there was nothing in its appearance
that was not more than justified by the expressions used by Procopius in
describing the buildings of Justinian, which certainly stood in this angle,1 or
those which Josephus used in reference to the fortifications of Agrippa, which,
as certainly, enclosed, on the east, some parts of the Haram area that before lay
bare.2 But when it was discovered that the foundation stood on the rock at 80
feet below the surface of the ground, neither of these theories could be sustained.
Justinian would have found some means ot contracting the dimensions of his
Mary Church, or of placing it farther north, rather than incur the expense
involved in such a gigantic foundation, and Agrippa would, naturally, have
followed the rock contour from the Triple Gateway to the Golden Gate, and
could have had no object in projecting this angle to where we now find it.

Herod certainly built nothing in this angle, and we are thus reduced by a
process of exhaustion to Solomon as the only historical person we know of who was
at all likely to undertake such a work as this. When once it is suggested that this
angle really is the “ great tower that lieth out, even unto the wall of Opliel,” 3 the
whole thing becomes so clear, and everything fits so exactly into its place, that we
feel at once that we have a new and fixed starting-point for the topography of
Jerusalem.4 It is not easy to determine how far the masons’ marks found on the
lower courses of the wall and the so-called Phoenician pottery found in front of it
may be used for fixing the date of these foundations. Their age seems to have
been arrived at from very slender data, and if the date of the masonry depended
on them alone, it might still be open to dispute. Fortunately, their evidence
may almost be dispensed with. The historical and local evidence, combined with
the character of the masonry, seems quite sufficient to settle the j3oint. At the
same time it is satisfactory to find that there is nothing either in the inscriptions
or the pottery that at all tends to invalidate this conclusion. On the contrary,

1 De Eaificiis Just. v. 6.

2 B. J. v. 4, 2.

3 Xehemiah iii. 27.

* To Captain W arren belongs not only the credit of
making the discovery, but also that of suggesting that
this angle of the Haram was an angle of Solomon’s
palace ; so that, if he had only adopted a reasonable
view of the site of Herod’s Temple, he might have
had he credit of settling one of the most important

points in the ancient topography of Jerusalem. The
perversity with which, however, he adopted erroneous
views on the subject of the Temple, and the vehe-
mence with which he adheres to them, has prevented
his seeing the true value of his own discoveries, and he
has there lost such an opportunity as is not likely soon
to recur agaiu of acquiring a distinguished position,
among the writers on Jerusalem topography.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part 1.

their evidence, in so far as it goes, is a contribution towards the proof that the
lower part of the masonry of this wall really is the work of Solomon. If it is
so, it is all the more interesting, as it is the only fragment of his workmanship
that has yet been discovered in an unaltered state in or about Jerusalem. Some
parts of the western wall of the passage leading upwards from the Triple Grate-
way may be of his age, but if so, it has been altered and disfigured since his
time to a great extent, and, even then, never was a part of the Temple, or ot
any building of his, we can recognise with certainty. The passage, as far as it
has been explored, terminates just before it reaches the south-east angle of his
Temple. South of this the foundations may be of Solomon’s time, but the super-
structure, as we now see it, is more probably that erected by Herod or Justinian.

If, therefore, we may assume that the south-east angle of the Haram area
represents the “ great tower that lietli out by the wall of Ophel,” we have next
to look for the tower that “ lietli out from the king’s high house, that was by the
court of the prison.” 1 This, from the context, was evidently farther north, but
how far, there is nothing to indicate with certainty. The first presumption is that
the north wall of the Temple was continued eastward till it met the eastern
boundary of the Haram area, and that the tower stood at that angle. Curiously
enough, on the outer face of the wall at that spot, M. Ganneau found an Arabic
inscription, stating that, “ by digging there (133 metres from the south-east angle)
a great quantity of stones will be found to serve for repairs and reconstructions.” 2
Evidently, some important building had existed there which had been exploits on
some former occasion. An excavation was attempted by a Turkish officer, but it
seems to have been of a very superficial character, and led to no satisfactory
result.3 All, therefore, that can be said is that the locality about halfway
between the Golden Gateway and the south-east angle of the Haram meets the
position where, from other indications, we should expect to find this tower
or some important building in connexion with it, and, as such, it may be allowed
to stand till a better is pointed out.

Assuming these two points as approximately fixed, it is easy to arrange the
various parts of the palace, if not with certainty, at least in such a manner as to
render them intelligible, and to enable us to follow all the events that took place
within its walls without difficulty ; though, of course, till the ground is excavated
and explored, there must be a good deal that is hypothetical in any such
restoration.

When looked at from this point of view, the first inference, both from what
is said in the Bible and in the paraphrase of it in Josephus,4 is that the Temple
and the palace formed parts of one great and probably tolerably regular design.
Solomon was seven years in building the first, but took thirteen to execute the

1 Nehemiah iii. 25.

2 Quarterly Reports, P. E. F. 1874, p. 136.

3 Page 165.

4 The description of the house is found in 1 Kings
vii. 1-12; Jos. Ant. viii. 5, 1, 2 ; to which it will not
be necessary to refer again.

Chap. VI.

SOLOMON’S PALACE.

second, the whole group of buildings most probably occupying twenty
consecutive years of bis reign ; 1 and as these were j^ears of great and growing
prosperity, the Palace may have been as magnificent as the Temple, or even
more so. Be this as it may, if they were parts of one design, the first
presumption is that, if we continue the axis of the Temple eastward till it
meets the Harare wall, it would be the axis of the great court, on the inner
side of which was situated the bouse of the cedars of Lebanon, 100 cubits
in length — corresponding exactly with the courts of the Temple — 50 cubits
in width and 30 cubits in height. This great hall was divided into three
aisles by four rows of pillars, the outer one of which was interwoven with the
eastern wall, as was the case with the fourth row, in the Stoa Basilica of Herod,
which practically seems, mutatis mutandis , to have been a copy, or at least a
reminiscence, of this celebrated building. The words of the text would, no doubt,
bear out the interpretation that all the four rows stood free ; but in that case
there would have been a row in the centre, and the throne must have stood
against the eastern wall. But this again is unlikely, because, had this been so,
there would probably have been not fifteen, but sixteen, or some even number
of columns, so as to have a central division. Besides this, their spacing is too
close, only about 6 cubits, which is not sufficient for a dignified transverse vista.
Altogether, I fancy the arrangement shown in the plan (Plate I.) is that which
best meets the exigencies of the case, the throne being placed in the centre at
the north end.2

Besides the house of the cedars of Lebanon, we learn from the Bible and
Josephus that there were two other edifices in this court, the details and positions
of which it is not very easy to make out. One of these was a porch 50 by 30
cubits, which I have placed before the entrance to the private apartments, as
these are described as “ within the porch,” 3 such a use being common in Eastern
palaces, and seems to meet the exigencies of the description. It would be the
deicani hhas, or private audience hall, of an Indian palace. In addition to these,
the Bible mentions “ a porch for the throne where he might judge,” and Josephus
describes this as a temple {va os), in which there was a large and glorious room
in which the king sat in judgment. He describes it apparently as centred in the
great hall, and as 30 cubits square, probably in the interior. Taking his text
literally, this dimension applies to another building, opposite to which this mos
stood. My impression is that he has misunderstood the passage in the Bible

1 1 Kings vi. 38 ; vii. 1.

In laying out the plan of these buildings of the

great court on Plate I., I have neglected the line of
the present -wall of the Haram area. All of it that can
be seen above ground is modern, beyond the first
hundred feet or so from the southern angle. The old
wall may have followed the same line farther north,
but I think it much more likely that, beyond the

limits of the dwelling courts of the palace, the buildings
of the upper court should have been set out at right
angles to the area of the Temple. This is, however,
one of those questions that can only be settled by
examination, and meanwhile is of very little im-
portance.

3 1 Kings vii. 8.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

which he was copying, and confounded this with the porch. In order, con-
sequently, to meet all the difficulties, I have inserted three buildings on the
plan, instead of two, though my own opinion is that Josephus has made a mistake
in this respect. The central one — where I originally placed a fountain — may be
omitted if any one thinks it superfluous. To me it seems just such a chabutra ,
or elevated covered platform, as one might expect to find in an Eastern palace :
and the whole arrangement is so like what we find at Nineveh and Persepolis
that I would allow it to stand. It seems to complete the arrangement of the
upper or great public court of the palace in a manner perfectly consonant with
what we know of similar buildings in the East.

In attempting to arrange the inner apartments ot the palace, properly so
called, I have been to a great extent guided by the remains existing on the spot ;
not that I believe that anything now found there above ground is of Solomon’s
age, but because I think it extremely likely that Justinian, when he built the
arches which now occupy that angle, may have utilised the foundations of older
buildings he found there. It is difficult otherwise to account for the irregularity
in the spacing of his piers. Be this as it may, it results in a central court about 70
feet square, surrounded by arcades or cloisters. On the west side of this is a range
of apartments perfectly suited from their situation for the reception of guests ; on
the east side for the liareem , or private apartments of the palace, and on the south
a great banqueting-hall, such as that mentioned by Josephus ; 1 and beyond these
again is a range of apartments overlooking the country to the southward, which
may well have been selected for the private residence of the sovereign himself.

The arrangements and dimensions of the palaces at Nineveh and Khorsabad
confirm and justify such a disposition to the fullest extent ; only that, in so far
as dimensions are concerned, it must be borne in mind that in the Assyrian
palaces nearly one-half of the area was occupied by the walls, in consequence
of their being composed of sun-burnt brick.2 At Jerusalem, where stone
was employed, not one-tenth of the area need have been so occupied,
and consequently a palace 300 feet square at Jerusalem — which is about the
dimension Solomon’s palace works out to — would be nearly equal in floor space
to one 400 feet square in Assyria. These dimensions are therefore quite as
large as I conceive we are justified in allotting to the private apartments of
Solomon’s palace, even allowing for its exceptional magnificence.

Besides the house built by Solomon for himself, there was another erected by
him for Pharaoh’s daughter, whom he had married.3 The only hint we have to
enable us to fix its situation is in Josephus, who says it was adjoining (Trapei^evKTo)
“ the judgment seat,” 4 and if so, can hardly have been anywhere but where I
have placed it. At one time I was inclined to place it farther south, near the

2 Palaces of Nineveh and Persepolis Restored, p. 275.

3 1 KiDgs vii. 8 ; 2 Chron. viii. 11. 4 Ant. viii. 5, 2.

Ant. viii. 5, 2.

Chap. YI.

SOLOMON’S PALACE.

Horse Gate, and on the west side of the inclined plane leading from the City of
David to the palace ; but the expression that Solomon brought her up from the
house of David1 implies that her dwelling must have been on the higher
level of the upper court. We are not told anywhere what the dimensions
of this apartment were ; but there are three queens’ houses at Khorsabad,2 and
they, making allowance for the extra thickness of the walls there, are about the
size I have allotted to the plan of this residence. There are also three residences
which the great Akbar built for his three favourite queens at Futtehpore Sicri,
near Agra ; these, however, are all very much smaller. Unfortunately, we have
no hint as to its internal arrangements. I have consequently tried to adapt those
of the Khorsabad palace to stone architecture, but, it may be, without much
success. It is difficult to form any distinct idea what they may have been.

When from these indications, which are principally taken from the Books
of Kings and Chronicles, combined with the description of Josephus, we turn
to the third chapter of the Book of Nehemiah, we find much to confirm
what has just been advanced. It will not be necessary to go into the discussion
regarding the walls of the city, as that does not belong to the present
subject ; 3 but we may begin with the armoury, which was almost certainly
situated on the north-western angle of the Temple. This we learn, as we
shall presently see, from the description of Ezekiel, who places in this angle
the chambers where the priests’ garments and other sacred things were kept ; 4
and it was at this augle that Baris and Antonia were situated, where these things
were afterwards deposited. It seems, in fact, to have been a re-building of a part at
least of the citadel built by David,5 whose residence was somewhere not far from
this,6 apparently in the same relative position on the south that this occupied on
the north of the Temple court. Its situation, too, described as at the “ turning
of the wall,” 7 is too distinct to be easily mistaken. Then follows the house
of the high-priest Eliashib, which was certainly attached to the Temple, and on
its north side. Next to this come other priests’ houses, in front of which was the
wall which was to be repaired (verses 22, 23). Then follows (verse 24) another
turning of the wall, which, I take it, can only mean the north-eastern, as the other
meant the north-western angle of the Temple. Next is mentioned (verse 25) “ the
tower which lieth out from the king’s high house, that was by the court of the
prison.” This completes, as I understand it, what is said regarding the north side
of the Temple and palace. If it could be considered as intended for a complete
description of the buildings situated there, it would be unsatisfactory ; not,

1 1 Kings ix. 24.

2 Victor Place, Ninive et Assyrie, pi. 3. See also
my History of Architecture, vol. i. woodcut 62.

3 If I were re-writing the article in Smith’s Dictionary

of the Bible on the topography of Jerusalem, based

on Nehemiah’s description, I could now improve it in

some parts, but not to such an extent as to justify the
introduction of its discussion here.

4 Ezekiel xlii. 1-14.

8 Canticles iv. 4.

6 Nehemiah xii. 37.

7 Nehemiah iii. 19.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

however, for anything it states, but for what it omits to mention. The fact seems
to be, however, that it is only a specification of certain repairs required to be done
to certain parts, and all that did not require repairing are consequently omitted.
It can, however, I fancy, be found from other sources that there was a gate to the
Temple on the north called the Prison Gate ; 1 but why so called is by no means
clear. The prison, as we have just seen, was further on, “ in the king of
Judah’s house.” 2 Even supposing the building called “ the guard ” can also be
considered part of the prison, it is not easy to see why a gate so far from even
that should bear that name. From the account of the dedication of the walls in
the twelfth chapter, it seems almost inevitable that it should be exactly opposite
the Water Gate, the position of which, as we shall presently see, is one of the
best known localities connected with the Temple. The two parties got on the wall
near the Tower of the Furnaces, which is almost certainly that now known as the
Tower of David, in the citadel, exactly opposite the Temple, on the other side of
the city ; and on one perambulating the northern walls passed the towers of
Meah and Hananeel on to the Sheep Gate, and stood still in the Prison Gate. The
other party, after traversing in like manner the southern walls, went up by the
stairs of the city of David, and past his house, “ unto the water gate eastward.”
“ So stood the two companies of them that gave thanks in the house of God,” 3
evidently, it appears, facing each other on the north and south sides of the
altar. No mention is made of the “ high gate behind the guard,” 4 which, I
think, from the context, could only be situated where I have placed it.

The east side of the palace is not alluded to. It apparently required no
repairs, but on the south side are a number of places, some of which we easily
recognise. The first is (verse 26) the Water Gate, which, as just mentioned,
is one of the localities of the Temple the position of which can be fixed with
the utmost certainty. It was due south of the Altar,5 and in the immediate
proximity of a series of rock-cut tanks, now known as the Well of the Leaf, in
the position shown in the plan, Plate I.

I have drawn the Water Gate with a courtyard 100 cubits square in front
of it, though it must be confessed the authority for this is neither very clear nor
conclusive. I cannot, however, believe that Ezekiel would have imagined a south
court6 if some such feature had not existed in Solomon’s Temple. This, however,
can hardly be called a court of the Temple, as it certainly was on a lower level,
and no part, apparently, of the Temple itself. Another reason for its existence
is that, when Ezra called the people together to read the Law to them, in front
of the Water Gate,7 it certainly was not in the “ street,” or thoroughfare, but in
some piazza, or open space, in front of the gate. The Hebrew word rahab , like
the 7r\aTeia of the Septuagint, means width, and a “wide open space” would seem

1 Nehemiah xii. 39. 2 Jeremiah xxxii. 2. 3 Nehemiah xii. 37, 40. 4 2 Kings xi. 5, 6, 19.

6 Lightfoot’s Prospect of the Temple, xxiv. p. 350. 0 Ezekiel xl. 24 et seqq. 7 Nehemiah viii. 1, 3, 1G.

Chap. VI.

SOLOMON’S PALACE.

a more correct translation than the “ street” of our version, which rather implies
length and narrowness. I fancy, too, that the stairs which led from the lower
level to the higher would hardly be left exposed, unless, like those leading from
the Palace, they were placed parallel to the wall, which is unlikely in this situation.

Another reason that induces me to believe in the existence of this southern
enclosure or court is that the distance between it and the southern wall of the
Haram, as rebuilt by Herod, is, as nearly as may be, 70 cubits or exactly the
width assigned by him to the great Stoa Basilica. Nothing appears to me more
probable than that, when Herod determined to erect that quasi-secular building-
on the south face of the Temple, he should have refrained from encroaching on
any ground that had been considered sacred or part of the old Temple, and have
enclosed just as much ground beyond it as was required for his new buildings.
The existence or non-existence of this court is not, however, of any very great
importance, and if the above evidence is not thought sufficient to establish it, it
may be rejected without detriment to the general argument. I can trace no
hint, except in Ezekiel, of the existence of a similar court on the north of the
Temple, though there is ample room for it. It is just 110 cubits from the northern
face of the Temple court, as erected in Solomon’s time, to the southern face of
the sustaining wall of the central platform, which was apparently the northern
boundary of the Temple as rebuilt by Herod.

The Horse Gate is another locality the position of which is nearly as certain
as that of the Water Gate. It may be a few yards farther north than I have
placed it, but practically it is that known in the present day as the Triple Gateway,
and was that by which horses came in to the king’s high house,1 from what
Josephus calls the Hippodrome,2 but which really was the royal stables.3 Above
the Horse Gate, the priests repaired every one “over against his own house”
(verse 28), which clearly shows that there were priests’ houses attached to the
south side of the Temple, as well as to the north ; but there is nothing to show
whether their number or arrangement was exactly that shown in the plan or not.
The other localities mentioned in these three verses (26-28) are clear enough.
Ophel is well known, and is that part of the ridge leading from the Temple
towards Siloam that was enclosed with walls. The position of the great tower
by the wall of Ophel has already been pointed out, but there seems to have been
a third tower (verse 26), which may be one situated at the south-western angle
of the palace, to correspond with those at the south-eastern and north-eastern
angles. Its position, however, is not very clearly indicated. From verse 29 to
the end of the chapter, all the repairs mentioned are those of the wall of
Ophel, and do not therefore belong to the present enquiry.

1 2 Kings xi. 16.

2 B. J. ii. 3, 1.

3 A precisely similar, inclined plane existed in the
palace at Khorsabad, by which horses and chariots

gained access to the upper courts of the palace, while
persons on foot ascended the flights of stairs parallel to
the wall, as shown in the plan to the east of the Temple.
See Victor Place, loc. sup. cit.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

There is still one locality in this neighbourhood the position of which it
would be very interesting to fix if the materials existed for doing so. It is that of
the house or palace of David. It was to the westward of the Water Gate, appa-
rently outside or under the wall of the Temple or city.1 That it was southward
from the Temple, we learn, first, from the fact that Solomon brought up the Ark
from the house of David ; and, secondly, because, as before mentioned, Pharaoh’s
daughter came up out of the city of David ; 2 “ for he said, My wife shall not
dwell in the house of David king of Israel, because the places are holy, whereunto
the ark of the Lord hath come ” ; 3 4 all this showing clearly enough whereabouts
it was ; but whether this was where I have written the name on the plan,
Plate I., though without attempting to draw the plan, is by no means clear.

Mr. Lewin was, I believe, the first to point out that, wherever the Temple
and the palace are spoken of at the same time, people are always said to go up
from the palace to the Temple, and vice versa? In so far as the two instances just
quoted are concerned, that of course is the case, but they refer to the house of David,
not to the palace of Solomon, and it by no means follows that these were identical
or situated on the same spot. From the passages in Nehemiali just quoted, it would
seem they were in two distinct localities. The difference of level, however, is
equally well marked in the south-east angle of the Haram area, where I have
placed the palace of Solomon. The floor of the vaults there, which I believe to
be on the level of the inner court of the Temple, is, as nearly as may be, 40 feet
below the level of the inner court of the Temple.5 This I have apportioned,
rightly or wrongly — one-fourth, or 10 feet, to the difference between the levels
of the inner and the great courts of the palace ; one-half, or 20 feet, to the
difference between the great court of the Temple and that of the court of the
palace ; and the remaining fourth, or 10 feet, to the difference between the level
of the two courts of the Temple. This last, as we shall presently see, was the
difference (7^ cubits) in Herod’s Temple, and I see no reason for believing
that it was altered in the interval. This, however, is assuming that the level
of the inner court of Solomon’s Temple was that of the present Haram area,
which is doubtful. Herod’s was certainly 10 or, it may be, 12 feet higher, and
we have no means of knowing whether in the earlier times it may not also have
been raised slightly. Whatever difference this may make should, I fancy, be

1 Nehemiali xii. 37.

2 1 Kings ix. 24.

s 2 Chron. viii. 11.

4 Sketch of Jerusalem, p. 23 ; quoting Jeremiah
xxii. 1 ; xxvi. 10 ; xxxvi. 12 ; 2 Chron. viii. 11 ; ix. 4 ;

1 Kings viii. 1, 4. In his map at the end of his
volume, Mr. Lewin places the Temple much too far
south, even on his own showing ; for he overlooks the
fact that, though Herod’s Temple was 600 feet square,
and the south wall of the Haram was the south wall of

his Temple, this was not the case in Solomon’s time.
The courts of his Temple cannot by any ingenuity be
extended so far south as the Haram boundary.

5 Major Wilson, in his Notes, p. 37, makes the
difference from the floor of the vaults to the level of the
area immediately above them 38 feet 3 inches; but as
the ground rises slightly towards the north and west, to
admit of drainage, we may take in round numbers 40 feet
for the difference between them and the site of the
Altar.

Chap. VI.

SOLOMON’S PALACE.

distributed between the lower and upper courts of the palace,1 for less than
20 feet will hardly do for the difference of level between the palace and the
Temple, though it does not appear that more is required. It was the ascent
by which Solomon went up to the house of the Lord2 that so astonished the
Queen of Sheba “ that there was no more spirit in her.” It is true the
corresponding flight at Persepolis, which is probably the finest example of
its class in the world, is only about half this in height, but its extent and
the richness of its sculptures, which are the real source of its splendour,
could find no place in Jerusalem, and height, therefore, in this instance is more
essential for magnificence.

Assuming the palace to be arranged, in its main features at least, as
indicated, we are now in a position to understand the tragedy in which Athaliah
performed so important a part. The account of the disposition of the forces,
which Jehoida divided into three parts, differs in the Books of Kings and
Chronicles, and these differ from Josephus, but it seems evident that one-third
was in the Temple, one-third at or behind the high gate or Grate of Sur, where the
guard chamber was, and the remaining third in the palace.3 When the queen,
who was in the palace, heard the shouts, she rushed into the Temple, and seeing
Joash on the royal stand in his robes of state, she shouted, “ Treason,” but they
“ laid hands on her ; and she went by the way by the which the horses came into
the king’s house : and there was she slain,” “ by the king’s house,” 4 consequently
just outside the Horse Gate, on a spot that could now almost be fixed within a few
yards. As for Joash, they brought him down from the house of the Lord, by the
way of the “ gate of the guard to the king’s house,” and they sat him “ on the
throne of the kings.”5 No doubt, at the upper end of the house of the cedars
of Lebanon. All this can be easily followed on the plan, as, indeed, can all the
narratives the scene of which is laid either in the palace or in the adjoining
Temple.

It is, of course, hardly to be expected that anything like complete success
should be attained in a first attempt to utilise recent discoveries, in forming a plan
of Solomon’s buildings at Jerusalem, and in protracting them on the Ordnance
Survey. Still, if I am not much mistaken, the plan of them drawn on Plate I.
is a considerable step in advance of anything that has been hitherto possible,
and, if still far from perfect, yet enables us to understand their arrangement, and
to follow the historical events narrated in the Old Testament to an extent not
previously attainable.

1 The ramp mside the Triple Gateway ascends at the
rate of about 1 foot in 1 5 feet, as far as it can he traced.

It is blocked, however, at about 200 feet from the southern

wall, and its level there is 24 feet below the present

area, and probably within a foot or two of the level of

the great court of the palace.

2 1 Kings x. 5 ; 2 Ohron. ix. 4.

3 The parallel passages are given by Lewin’s Sketch
of Jerusalem, p. 25.

4 2 Kings xi. 16; 2 Chron. xxiii. 15.

5 2 Kings xi. 19.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

The points which may be considered as absolutely fixed in this plan are, first,
the position in the Temple of the Altar and of the holy house itself, though the
full proof of this will be better understood when we come to protract the
measurements of Herod’s Temple, as these are topographically much more
complete than those for that of Solomon. Secondly, the size and position of the
courts of the Temple are as nearly certain as anything of the sort can well be,
and consequently the position of Solomon’s Porch becomes a fixed point in the
topography. The position of the Water Gate is another fixed point, the proof
of which, however, also depends on the evidence of Herod’s Temple. That of the
Prison Gate is only inferred from the probability that it was opposite the Water
Gate. The position of the priests’ houses is also very probable, and also the
existence of a southern enclosure 100 cubits square ; but there seems no evidence
of one on the north. In the palace, the position of the house of the cedars of
Lebanon seems hardly doubtful, nor the position and general arrangements of the
great court, 110 cubits square. The position of the palace properly so called,
and its general dimensions, say, 200 cubits by 180, I look upon as very nearly
ascertained, but what its internal arrangements may have been is quite another
matter. If we may disregard all local indications, it may be anything any one
pleases ; but following them, as I have done, the result conforms so closely with
the descriptions of Josephus, and with our general knowledge of Eastern palaces
of nearly the same age, that it may he allowed to stand, till at least a better is
suggested. I consider it also as almost certain that the south-eastern angle of
the Haram area is an angle of “ the great tower, that lies out from the king’s
high house to the wall of Ophel,” and that the other “ tower, by the court of the
prison,” 1 is not far from where it is placed on the plan. The position and plans
of the house of Pharaoh’s daughter are matters of more uncertainty, but are
not of great importance in the topography.

I am far, however, from fancying that I may not have overlooked some
important passages bearing on the subject, or that I may have failed to apprehend
the bearing of some indications likely to alter materially the conclusions arrived
at. I feel, indeed, confident that if I could devote another month or two to the
investigation, it might he improved in various minor details. But after all, the
evidence is so sparse, and of so unsatisfactory a nature, that even after taking the
utmost pains a great deal must be left to the imagination. Unless, indeed, some
new discoveries are made, there is much about these buildings that must depend
more on the knowledge and ability of the individual restorer than on anything
found in ancient authors or derived from indications on the spot. Whatever may
be done to it now, the plan wants to go through a second edition, and, more than
this, the rectification of a second eye, by some one familiar with the spot, and
willing to take the pains to wade through the scattered evidence bearing on the

1 Nehemiali iii. 25.

Chap. VI.

SOLOMON’S PALACE.

subject. Meanwhile, it may probably be accepted as explaining a good deal of
what was hitherto unintelligible. Its chief merit, however, will probably be
found to be that it enables us to understand the position of affairs when Herod
undertook to rebuild the Temple twenty-three years before the Christian era,
together with the various changes he introduced into its plan and dimensions.
Strange to say, we have nothing whatever to guide us as to the subsequent fate
of the Palace. It was burnt at the time of the Babylonian captivity, and never
afterwards rebuilt, and, as before remarked, we have no hint of how this angle of
the Haram area was occupied, till Justinian erected his Mary Church on the
place where Solomon’s celebrated palace had stood, and had been destroyed more
than eleven centuries before he reoccupied the spot.

EARLY TEMPLES OE THE JEWS.

Part I.

CHAPTER VII.

SEPULCHRES OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL.

Assuming, for the present at least, that the buildings of Solomon were arranged
somewhat in the manner just described and shown in the plan, Plate I., it
may strike some persons as strange that they should have been compressed, so to
speak, into the southern portion of the Haram area, while a large vacant space,
about 1000 feet square, existed to the northward of them, which, so far as present
appearances go, was at least as suitable for them as the spot on which some of
them were placed. It has already been pointed out {supra, page 35) why the
threshing-floor of Araunah was placed where it was, and why it was chosen by
David as the most eligible spot about Jerusalem for the erection of his altar.
That being fixed, the position of the Temple behind it and that of the house of
the cedars of Lebanon in front of it, followed almost, as a matter of course, on the
same axis ; but it is not so obvious why the private apartments of the palace
were not placed to the northward instead of to the southward of this range of
buildings. It seems, indeed, at first sight strange that Solomon should be at the
expense of building uji a solid tower 100 feet in height to support the south-
eastern angle of his palace, while a more favourable site existed to the north,
where no such costly foundations would be required.

There may, of course, have been fifty reasons for this, and perhaps the wisest
plan would be to rest content with the knowledge that it was so, without
trying to find out why things were so arranged. At this distance of time, and
with our limited knowledge of the circumstances of the case, we may fairly be
held excused if we cannot explain everything. Meanwhile, however, there is
one circumstance that appears so certain as hardly to admit of a doubt, and to be
in itself sufficient to explain the anomaly ; at the same time, it is so important that
it is well worth while trying to establish it before going further. It is that the
greater number of the kings of Israel, from David down to the Captivity, were
buried within this area, to the north of the Temple ; that it was, in fact, a
cemetery, the spot where were situated “ the graves of the children of the people
at the brook Ividron, without Jerusalem,” 1 and could not consequently be built
upon. Whether it was so used by the Jebusites before the Jews got possession of
the city is by no means clear. From its position with reference to Jerusalem it

1 2 Kings xxiii. 6.

Chap. VII.

SEPULCHRES OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL.

appears probable it might have been so, but whether this was so or not, it seems
certain that David was buried there, and if he was, so were most of his successors.

The fixation of the exact position of the sepulchres of the kings of Israel
depends mainly — in so far, at least, as the Bible texts are concerned — on the
interpretation of some passages in the 3rd chapter of the Book of Nehemiah,
which have not yet been satisfactorily explained. In all that applies to the walls
of the northern half of the city, there is no difficulty. The repairs commenced
at the Sheep Gate, which may be a little farther from the Temple than I have
placed it, but certainly in that wall. They then extended to the Tower of the
Furnaces, which was either the tower that now stands in the citadel near the
Jaffa Gate or one that stood on the same site. In the 13th chapter all the
places mentioned in the 3rd, from this tower to the Prison Gate of the Temple,
are re-enumerated, but in the reverse order, so that, though it is impossible to fix
the exact distance between each, there is no difficulty as to their relative positions.
On the southern division, however, the case is by no means so clear. From the
Tower of the Furnaces to the Dung Gate (verse 14) all seems clear, and if we
might omit the first part of the 15th verse, and assume that the wall in course
of reparation was only that of the old city of the Jebusites, till we reach the
19tli verse, all would be clear. But the mention of “the wall of the pool of
Siloah by the king’s garden ” seems an interpolation. The only solution of the
difficulty that occurs to me is that, after turning the corner at the southern
extremity of the modern Zion, the description follows the course of the Tyropason
valley, which certainly had no wall across it at its southern extremity, though it
had on either hand. It was emphatically the place “ between two walls, which
is by the King’s garden,”1 and it does not seem illogical to suppose that in this
instance Kehemiah may have described the repairs of the walls on his right hand
and on his left in alternate verses.

Be this as it may, I think there can be very little doubt “ that the stairs of
the city of David,” 2 above his house, were situated very nearly, even if not on the
exact spot, where the causeway with stairs afterwards stood leading from the Stoa
Basilica to the city, and that the part of the wall mentioned after the “ stairs ” in
the 16th verse3 was that on the brow over the Xystus, and consequently over
against the spot where the Dome of the Rock was afterwards erected. This
becomes clearer when we take together all the three objects mentioned in the
16th verse, for “the house of the mighty” could hardly be other than the house
of David mentioned in connexion with these stairs in the 12th chapter (verse 37);
and the pool that was made was no doubt that which was formed by ITezekiah
when he “ stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down
to the west side of the city of David : ” 4 this was certainly within the city,
and was made for the purpose of supplying it with water in case of a siege. Its

2 Nehemiah xii. 37.

1 2 Kings xxv. 4.

3 Nehemiah iii.

4 2 Chron. xxxii. 30.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

position is further defined by a passage in Isaiah, where it is said, “ Ye made
also a ditch ” (a reservoir) “ between the two walls for the water of the old
pool.” 1 From all this, and a great deal more that could he said on the
subject, it seems hardly doubtful that this pool was situated in the Tyropgeon
valley, probably on the exact axis of the Temple ; and some evidences of its
existence may probably be identified, among the remains found by Captain
Warren in his excavations on the spot. It is possible, however, that it may
have been obliterated when Herod extended the Temple area westward, as it
was no doubt situated in the very lowest part of the ravine.2

Be all this as it may, the one thing that seems certain is, that the sepulchre
of David and consequently the tombs of the kings were situated on Zion or the
eastern hill. The choice, in fact, in so far as Nehemiah’s evidence is concerned,
lies between placing the tombs of the kings on Ophel, south of the Temple, or on
the vacant space north of it. Taking the whole of the circumstances of the case
into consideration, it appears that the evidence is immeasurably in favour of the
northern as against the southern side.3

The identity of Zion with the city of David is one of those points in the
topography of Jerusalem that may be considered as settled beyond dispute, and
also that Zion was the Temple hill down, certainly, to the time of the Maccabees.4
Even if it were possible to get over the distinct assertion of the Book of Samuel,
that “ David took the strong hold of Zion : the same is the city of David,” 5 there
are fifty other passages which, taken together, prove beyond all cavil that the
eastern Temple hill was known as Zion,6 and as the true site of the city of
David till at least the fourth century — possibly much later — when, in order
to separate Christian from Jewish tradition, the name was transferred to the
western hill, and naturally the tomb of David followed the name from which it
could not be disassociated, for all who could read the Scriptures knew that he
was buried “ on Zion in the city of David.”

Assuming this, for the present, we find that the following ten kings were
buried not only in the same group of sepulchres, generally called “ those of their

1 Isaiah xxii. 11.

2 It is just possible, however, that this pool is one of
those mentioned by the Bordeaux Pilgrim : “ Sunt in
Hierusalem piscinaj magnae duas, ad latus Templi, id est
una ad dextram alia ad sinistram quas Solomon fecit.”
In that case the other must have been on the site of
Solomon’s palace, and it seems it probably was so
considered in the fourth century ; for in the same chapter
the Pilgrim goes on to say, after describing the position
of Solomon’s palace with perfect correctness, as situated

in the south-east angle of the Haram, “ Sunt ibi et

exceptuaria magna aquae subterranea, et piscinae magno

opere aedificatas.” Tobler’s edit. p. 4. It is new to us

to be told that the site of Solomon’s palace was turned
into a tank, but still no other interpretation of the

Bordeaux Pilgrim’s description seems possible.

3 In a carefully reasoned paper by the Rev. W. F .
Birch, in the last number of the Quarterly Report of the
P. E. F. for October 1877, the author adopts the view
that David’s tomb was on Ophel, south of the Temple.
I cannot, however, consider his arguments as at all
conclusive.

4 1 Maccabees iv. 37 et seqq. and 60 ; vii. 33.

6 2 Samuel v. 7.

6 The question has been exhaustively treated by
Thrupp in his Ancient Jerusalem, p. 21, in such a
manner as to leave no doubt in my mind that the fact
is beyond dispute. Mr. Lewin (Sketch of Jerusalem,
p. 7) endorses Mr. Thrupp’s opinion.

Chap. VII.

SEPULCHRES OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL.

fathers,” but that in each instance it is expressly stated that these sepulchres were
situated in the city of David, viz. : David,1 Solomon,2 Rehoboam,3 Asa,4 Jehoshaphat,5
Joram,6 Joash,7 Amaziah,8 Azariah,9 Jotham,10 Ahaz.11 ITezekiah was buried “in
the chiefest of the sepulchres of the sons of David,” 12 and XJzziali “ in the field of
the burial, which belonged to the kings ; for they said, He is a leper.” 13 On the
other hand, Manasseli was buried in the garden of his own house, in the garden of
Uzza,14 and Amon in his own sepulchre in the same place,15 and Josiah in his
own sepulchre at Jerusalem,16 and Ahaz “ in the city, even in Jerusalem,” but not
in the sepulchres of the kings.17 These last four may have been buried in those
sepulchres which were always known to have existed under the western boundary
wall of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre,18 and their existence there may have
been the reason why that particular spot was chosen in the eleventh century for
the erection of that new sepulchral church so as to give an air of probability to
the imposture by showing that graves had always existed in that neighbourhood.
Be this as it may, the whole tendency of the above is to show that a distinction
was made between the late and bad kings, who were buried in the city of the
Jebusites, and the good and great kings, who were buried on Zion, in the city of
David. Other kings were buried at Samaria when they died ; but the above is a
complete list of all those who died at Jerusalem, and in every case the locality in
which the king was buried is distinctly specified, and in the great majority of in-
stances it is in the tombs of the kings, in the city of David, on the holy Mount Zion.

It is not quite clear whether it was because they were bad kings that the
later ones were buried in the city and not in the tombs of their forefathers, or
whether this arose from a growing feeling among the Jews that the proximity of
the Temple was not quite the place that ought to be used for this purpose. From
the language of Ezekiel it would seem that the latter was the more probable
cause. One of the reforms which he seems to have hoped the Israelites would
effect on their return to Jerusalem was that, besides the rebuilding of the Temple,
they should “ no more defile the place where God dwelt in the midst of his
people, and his holy name, by the carcases of their kings in their high places,”
but should put away “ the carcases of their kings far from him, that he might
dwell among them for ever.” 19

Whether it was in consequence of this vigorous denunciation of the practice,
or from some other cause, we find no further mention of any kings being buried on
the eastern hill till, incidentally, we find mention made of John and his faction
defending themselves from the tower Antonia, and from the northern cloister

I 1 Kings ii. 10.

3 1 Kings xiv. 31.

6 1 Kings xxii. 50.

7 2 Kings xii. 21.

9 2 Kings xv. 7.

II 2 Kings xvi. 20.

13 2 Chron. xxvi. 23.

2 1 Kings xi. 43.

4 1 Kings xv. 24.

6 2 Kings viii. 24.

8 2 Kings xiv. 20.

10 2 Kings xv. 38.

12 2 Chron. xxxii. 33,
14 2 Kings xxi. 18.

16 2 Kings xxi. 26. 16 2 Kings xxiii. 30.

17 2 Chron. xxviii. 27.

18 They are carefully figured by Bernardino Amici in
Trattato de sacri Edifizi, 1609, and more carefully by
M. Ganneau, in the Quarterly Report of the P. E. F. for
April 1877.

19 Ezekiel xliii. 7, 9.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

of the Temple, and fighting the Romans in front of the monument (ixvy][xeiov) of
king Alexander.1 This is sufficient to show that kings, and probably other
people, were buried in the field of the sepulchres of the kings in immediate
proximity of the northern wall of the Temple even after the Christian era ; but
there is nothing to show to what extent this prevailed, nor who the parties were
who had this privilege.

What, then, and where were these celebrated sepulchres ? They could hardly
have been structural edifices of any great external magnificence, or they could
scarcely have escaped being mentioned by Josephus or some other traveller. The
pyramids of Helena of Adiabene were buildings, and are consequently mentioned
by Pausanias,2 but no one alludes to the tombs of the kings of Israel. On the
other hand, those of the Herodian family are well known, under the name of Kub’r
ul Mulk, to the north of Jerusalem, and as all the tombs around the city — almost
without exception, so far as I know — are sejmlchral caverns, the presumption
certainly is that these royal sepulchres were so also. Though long disused as
burying-places, their position seems to have remained well known, otherwise we
should not have the story that Hyrcanus borrowed 3000 talents from the tomb of
David,3 and still less the very circumstantial account of the second robbery of the
same tomb by Herod. The whole account of the adventure, as given by
Josephus,4 is intelligible, if told of a natural cavern difficult to explore, and not a
regular building with chambers, or even with vaults underground. Besides this,
the propitiatory monument that Herod erected at the mouth (ini tm o-to^lo)) of
the sepulchres, could only be applied to a cavern, not to the door of a chamber.
This monument was probably that subsequently known as that of Solomon,
which afterwards fell, or was knocked down, in the time of Hadrian.5 If this is
so, it seems difficult to escape the conviction that the great natural cavern of which
a portion is seen under the Dome of the Rock may be the identical sepulchre in
which the kings of Israel from David to Hezekiah were originally laid.6 What
we now see there is a quadrangular chamber measuring 23 by 24 feet, formed by
four walls of masonry, erected between the roof and floor of a large natural cavern.
We know nothing of the form of the cavern itself, nor how far it may extend

1 Josephus, B. J. v. 7, 3 ; Ant. xiii. 16, 1.

2 Greeciaj descript, viii. 16. To this subject we shall
have occasion to revert further on.

3 Ant. xiii. 8, 3.

4 Ant. xvi. 7, 1.

6 Dio Cassius, xlix. 14, p. 1162, Hamburgii 1752.

6 When I wrote my Topography of Jerusalem in
1847, I was willing to leave this question open for
further investigation. I am absolutely convinced that the
sepulchre in which Christ was laid was in this cemetery,
probably in this very rock, and under the very dome,
and still more absolutely convinced that the Kubbet es
Sakhra is the identical church which Constantine erected

over the cave which he believed to be the sepulchre o f
Christ. So I stated the question in 1865, in my work
entitled Holy Sepulchre and Temple in Jerusalem,
p. 116, and this is all I have ever contended for since,
leaving the question as to whether Constantine was
right or was mistaken to be determined by future
investigation. I am still as convinced as ever that the
“ new sepulchre ” was there or thereabouts, and that
the dome was erected by Constantine; but subsequent
investigation seems to me to make it clear that the
actual cave itself, as we now know it, must be given up
to the kings of Judah.

Chap. VII.

SEPULCHRES OF THE KINGS OF ISRAEL.

in any direction, nor how many loculi — if any — may be hidden by the walls that
now enclose the chamber. All we do know is that it is a very similar cavern to
that of Machpelah, in which Abraham and the Patriarchs are buried at Hebron,
and being so, it seems very probable that David and his successors, finding a
similar cave at Jerusalem, should have utilised it for the same purpose.1

At such a distance of time, and in a place which has undergone such vicissi-
tudes, any tradition that may attach to any particular locality must he received
with extreme caution ; hut it is curious to find that Solomon’s sepulchre is
still pointed out under the Dome of the Rock on the north side of the Sakhra,
and is so marked on the Ordnance Survey. If the sepulchre of Solomon, how-
ever, is found here, a fortiori we ought to expect to find that of David also.
Fortunately, however, as just pointed out, the Bible is too explicit about the
identity of Zion and the city of David, and it is equally emphatic that his
sepulchre was in the city of David. All this, indeed, was so well known, that
it became indispensable, when the name Zion was, in Christian times, transferred
to the western hill, that the sepulchres should go there also. In a more critical
age the sepulchres of the other kings would have gone with that of David, but
as the evidence is not so direct that Solomon and his successors were buried
on Zion, their tombs were left where — as I have just pointed out — I believe they
are now to be found.

If this is so, it is probable that the chamber under the Sakhra was built
at the time it was taken possession of by the Christians, and when Constantine
built his dome over it. In that case the Christians probably placed an open
sarcophagus against its inner wall, which to them, in the fourth century, would
appear a much more natural and appropriate mode of burial than a Jewish
loculus. When the Mahomedans took possession of it, they, by removing this
sarcophagus, at once obliterated all trace of funereal usage, and referred it to
something they neither then nor now comprehended. For, as we shall after-
wards see, to the present day the Mahomedans have only the very haziest ideas
as to who built the mosque, when it was erected, or for what purpose.

If, however, this cave did really contain the sepulchres of David and his
successors — which no longer appears to me doubtful — we have gained one great
step in its history, and one that has the most important hearing on some of the
most interesting points in the topography of Jerusalem.

We shall more than once have occasion to refer to this subject in the sequel,
as its hearing is important on several questions connected with the topography
of the city. Meanwhile, it is not only curious but interesting to observe by what
a strange stroke of the irony of fate — though one singularly characteristic of the

1 The hole in the roof of the Sakhra cave is so very
similar to that in the corresponding position at Hebron
that one cannot help fancying it may have been used
for the same purpose, and that, as at Hebron, the rock

was enclosed in a wall, and no apparent access to the
tomb but by this opening. If we knew where the
stairs to the tomb, if any, at Hebron were, we might
settle this.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

place — the two principal tombs of Jerusalem — those of David and of Christ —
should both, after existing for centuries on the eastern hill, have been transferred
to the western, where they are now supposed to exist. It does not, however,
seem difficult to perceive how the transfer of the first took place. It was simply
that when the Christians first became aware that the eastern hill was the scene
of the ministration and passion of their founder, with that hatred of Jewish
tradition and localities which characterised all they did at Jerusalem, they
determined to clear as far as possible their holy places from all connexion with
those of the previous dispensation. The Temple and its ruins they could not
displace, but by calling the western hill Zion they got rid of the sepulchres of
the kings, and of all the associations that made that name so sweet and musical
to Jewish ears, and left the new Jerusalem as far as possible dissociated from
the old. It was not then, however, nor probably till long afterwards — most
likely in Moslem times — that this change of name led to its logical sequence,
and a new tomb of David was erected on the new Zion, because every one
who had access to the ancient scriptures of the Jews knew that David was
buried on Zion, which was identical with the city of David.

The transfer of the tomb of Christ to the western hill belongs to a subsequent
part of our narrative, and need not therefore be further alluded to here. That
the transference did take place is as certain as anything in the topography
of Jerusalem ; and the motives which made it necessary are equally clear,
though the circumstances under which this was effected have not yet been
investigated with sufficient fulness or care to render the mode in which it was
done quite clear to those who would prefer to believe that no such transference
ever occurred.1

They were stated with sufficient fulness for our present purposes in my Topography of Jerusalem, pp. 164 et seqq.

Chap. VIII.

THE TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL.

CHAPTER VIII.

THE TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL.

Under ordinary circumstances the Temple of the Jews, as described in the
40th and subsequent chapters of the Book of Ezekiel, ought not to have any
place in a work purporting to describe the successive Temples erected by the
Israelites at Jerusalem during the time that city was occupied by them. It
never, in fact, had any material existence, and was neither a correct description
of the Temple that was destroyed when the city was taken by the Babylonians,
and its inhabitants led into captivity, nor an exact prophecy of that one which
they erected after their return. What the prophet really aimed at, in writing it,
seems to have been to place on record such a detailed specification of what he
remembered of the old Temple as would have enabled his countrymen, if they
ever returned to their native land, to re-erect it on the spot where it originally
stood. If he had confined himself to this it would have been invaluable to us
for our present purpose, but he added some suggestions of his own which
apparently were never carried into effect. This, with the obscurity inherent in
all mere verbal descriptions, have so confused the subject that it is perhaps not
too much to say that, if Ezekiel’s description had never been written, many points
that are now considered doubtful could have been settled long ago, and others
never would have been questioned. This is particularly the case with the
compilers of the Talmud. Throughout that work the Rabbis show the most
laudable anxiety to reconcile the statements of Ezekiel with the data furnished by
those who knew the Temple as rebuilt by Herod, and had left measurements and
statements regarding it on record. Had they understood what Ezekiel really did
say or mean, nothing could have been better, and no difficulty would ever have
arisen; but, in several important particulars, they certainly misunderstood the
meaning of the prophet, and, in modern times, this has also frequently been the
case. Nor, indeed, is this to be wondered at ; for in addition to the difficulties
above alluded to of making the form of a complicated building intelligible by
mere words, this is aggravated in the instance before us by the introduction of
supernatural machinery and the necessity of delivering in a prophetic form what
could hardly have been made intelligible in the soberest prose. Notwithstanding
all tins, with the knowledge we now possess of the form and dimensions of
Solomon’s Temple, and, more so, of the modifications introduced by Herod, there

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

seems little difficulty in understanding the prophet’s meaning, and in checking
the extravagances sometimes ascribed to him.1

The description of the holy house commences with the 48th verse of the
40th chapter, where the chapters ought to be divided, and is continued
throughout the 41st chapter. The specification, in length, is almost identical
with that given in the Middoth 2 for Herod’s Temple, except that 10 cubits are
omitted for the little chambers behind the wall to the westward of the Holy of
Holies. It is as follows — east and west : —

Cubits.

Outer wall of porcli 5

Porch. 11

Wall of Temple 6

Holy place 40

Wall of separation 2

Holy of Holies .20

Wall of Temple 6

90 cubits ;

which is the length specified in verse 12, and is the same as that of Solomon’s
Temple, though differently divided. It therefore, probably, is correct, but as there
were no small chambers to the westward in the prophet’s Temple, the increased
length of the main body of the building is made up, to the eastward, in the porch.
If this were so, the specification in verse 6 must must be taken literally. There
would in that case be only thirty chambers in all, fifteen on each side, arranged in
three storeys, five in each. In Herod’s Temple, as we shall see, we have the same
depth of porch as in Ezekiel’s, but 10 cubits are added behind for the little
chambers, making up 100 cubits over all. It may be by an inadvertence that
they are omitted here, but, on the whole, I fancy the prophet wished to adhere as
exactly as possible to the dimensions of Solomon’s Temple, yet thought the greater
dignity to the facade of more importance than the eight little chambers behind.

The cross-sectiou, in like manner, seems to have been : —

Cubits.

Central chambers 20

Walls of temple, 6x2 12

Chambers, 4x2 8

Walls of chamber, 5x2 10

50 cubits ;

or 5 cubits in excess of Solomon’s, which I believe to have been caused by the
so-called outer wall of 5 cubits having been, practically, a passage or verandah

1 One of the most marvellous misconceptions of the
prophet’s meaning that has been published in modern

times is that proposed by the Rev. Hr. Currey to ac-
company his revision of Ezekiel in the Speaker’s Com-
mentary of the Bible, published in 1876. As I have

already exposed what I believe to be its absurdities in
an article in the Contemporary Review for May 1876,
I need not do more than refer to it here, so that any one
that chooses may satisfy himself regarding it.

2 Middoth, ch. iv. sect. 7.

Chap. VIII.

THE TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL.

giving access to each of the small chambers without going through each, which
must have been an intolerable nuisance in Solomon’s Temple. In verse 11, this
passage is called the place that “ was left,” into which a door opened on the north
for the northern chambers, and on the south for those on that side ; but as no
mention is made of it on the west, this is an additional proof that no chambers
were intended on that side. The “ separate place ” which the prophet so often
alludes to in this part of his description is evidently the hypsethral part of the
court in which the Temple itself stood, which was 100 cubits square, and, as we
might expect, was reserved for the priests alone, and separated from those parts
to which the laity had access.

There is one little difficulty here which I cannot explain except on the
hypothesis that east and “west” have somehow got transposed in the 12th and
14th verses. If it were not so, it would appear that the staircases leading to the
little chambers were at the west end, making up the width there to 70 cubits,
instead of at the east, as we have reason to suppose they were in Solomon’s,
making up the width of the front to 60 cubits. As the Temple itself was
5 cubits wider, it is not unnatural to suppose the fa£ade may have been wider
also ; for the specification (in verse 14) states, “Also the breadth of the face of
the house, and of the separate place towards the east an hundred cubits ” ; but
how much of this belonged to the house, and how much to the separate place,
we are not told. So it was also with the length east and west (verse 15).
In other words — and that, in fact, is all, or nearly all, that it is essential for us
to know here — the Temple as described by Ezekiel was a building measuring
90 cubits east and west by 50 cubits north and south, and probably with a
fa£ade of 70 cubits width, and, further, that it stood in a courtyard measuring
100 cubits each way.

Besides this court, in which the Temple itself stood, the prophet describes in
the 40th chapter four other courts, which seem certainly to have been disposed as
shown in the diagram on next page (woodcut No. 9). He begins with the
eastern court, and first describes its gateways, which, notwithstanding the
minuteness of his details, is a puzzle not easy to solve, and is, indeed, hardly
worthwhile spending much time upon. No such gates existed, so far as we know,
in Solomon’s Temple, nor in Herod’s. In fact, it does not seem to have been a
Jewish feature at all, but one the jirophet may have seen and admired in Assyria,
and one he may have thought it expedient to introduce into the Temple at
Jerusalem, if it ever were rebuilt. For our present purpose it is sufficient to
know that these gates were 50 cubits east and west and 25 cubits broad, and
that they stood, apparently, projecting one- third outside the walls ; one-third was
occupied by the thickness of the walls, and of the thirty little cells that surrounded
the court ; and the rest projected into the court. From the face of the gate of the
entrance to the face of the porch of the inner gate was 50 cubits (verse 15), while
the court itself measured 100 cubits eastward and northward (verse 19). That

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

none of these courts were longer than 100 cubits is tolerably clear from the
fact, that no longer measure than 100 cubits is anywhere to he found in this
description, and that with it all the measurements fit easily into their places.

8. — City Gateways, Khorsabad. (From Victor Place.)

The verandahs — “posts” — on each side of the gateway were 30 cubits on the
right and 30 on the left — “three score” together (verse 14). The gateway
was 25 cubits, and, consequently, 7 \ cubits must have been the width of the

9. — Diagram Plan of the Temple as described by Ezekiel.

thirty little cells, that being the length necessary to make up the 100 cubits,
which were the internal dimensions of the court.

The prophet then describes five other gateways, which were identical in

Chap. VIII.

THE TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL.

form and dimensions with the one first described; two to the northern and two
to the southern, as there were two to the eastern court ; and all centred in the
altar court, which is described in verses 39-43.

Having in the 40th chapter described these courts, he, as before mentioned,
devotes the 41st to the Temple itself, and begins the 42nd with these words
“ He brought me forth into the outer court, the way toward the north : and he
brought me into the chamber that was over against the separate place, and which
was before the building” (the Temple) “ toward the north;” and the next thirteen

10. — Plan of the Temple and Sanctuary as described by Ezekiel.

verses are occupied with the description of this enclosure in the north-west angle
of the other courts. It is hardly worth while trying to work out its arrangements
in this place, through this could easily be done with more or less certainty. Its
principal interest for us, here, is to know that it occupied the same relative position
to Ezekiel’s Temple that the Armoury did in Solomon’s, and that it was devoted
to the same purposes, viz. for keeping of the priests’ garments and the utensils
and furniture used in the ceremonial of the Temple, and also for the lodging
of some of the servants of the Temple.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

When Herod rebuilt the Temple, he rebuilt the old citadel Baris, calling it
Antonia, and, as we shall afterwards see, devoted it to the same uses.

The prophet then concludes this chapter with the following words, which
have been a stumbling-block to many, and a source of infinite error to most of
those who have attempted to restore the Temple : — “ Now when he had made an
end of measuring the inner house, he brought me forth toward the gate whose
prospect is toward the east, and measured it round about. He measured the east
side with the measuring reed, five hundred reeds, with the measuriug reed round
about.” And so with the north, south, and west sides, each 500 reeds, 3000 cubits,
and he sums up, verse 20 : — “ He measured it by the four sides : it had a wall
round about, five hundred reeds long, and five hundred broad, to make a
separation between the sanctuary and the profane place.” 1 Evidently this had
nothing to do with the Temple or its courts, which cannot by any legerdemain
be stretched beyond 300 cubits each way, but was a great division of the land,
including the city, and separating the just from the unjust or impure.

The Septuagint, however, translates it “cubits” instead of “reeds,” and the
Rabbis, in the Talmud, have adopted that translation, aud hence nine-tenths of
the difficulties which have arisen in the attempts to reconcile the Talmud with
Josephus or with the Ordnance Survey, as we shall find as we proceed. Having
adopted 500 cubits instead of the true number of 400 cubits for the external
measurements of the outside of the “ mountain of the house,” the Rabbis had
100 cubits to dispose of, and, not knowing what better to do with them, put
them into the Court of the Women, and so vitiated the whole plan and
arrangement. But of this hereafter. Meanwhile, what the vision of Ezekiel
practically comes to is this. He describes the Temple, properly so called, very
nearly as it had been erected by Solomon, only increasing the depth of the porch,
and omitting the cells behind ; assuming these to have existed in the earlier
Temple, which, however, is not quite clear ; and he may have proposed to increase
the width of the fat^ade from 60 to 70 cubits with a corresponding height. The
court in which the Temple and altar stood, he makes 200 cubits by 100 as before,
and he adds a court 100 cubits square to the eastward, all which, as above
stated, we have every reason to believe certainly existed in Solomon’s Temple. He
adds, however, a northern and southern court, each 100 cubits square. The latter
of these, as above pointed out, may have been indicated in the earlier Temple,
though no trace of the northern court is to be found anywhere ; and he replaced
the armoury of Solomon’s Temple by a fifth court, making it 100 cubits square, in
which, besides there being, as in the armoury, apartments devoted to the custody of
the priests’ garments, there were also residences for a certain number of priests.

1 It is not quite clear whether or not this is the wall mentioned at the beginning of the 5th verse of chapter xl.
My impression is that it is, though its dimensions, 6 cubits high by the same breadth, are peculiar.

Chap. VIII.

THE TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL.

The alterations, though none of them very important, were all, doubtless,
improvements ; and, as none of them infringed on the Sacred measures de-
livered to Moses on the Mount, may have been just such as the prophet might
reasonably hope to see adopted whenever the Temple was rebuilt.

The one point, however, on which it is most important to dwell, here, is that
the last measurement of 500 reeds has no more to do with the dimensions of the
Temple, properly so called, than those of the walls of the City of London have to
do with the dimensions of St. Paul’s Cathedral. This measurement belongs

O “

in fact, to the 45th chapter, and, if I am not very much mistaken, is repeated
in its second verse as the first of the divisions into which the land was to be
apportioned for various administrative purposes.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Pakt I.

CHAPTER IX.

THE TEMPLE OF ZERUBBABEL.

Except the passages above quoted with reference to the Temple of Solomon
(ante, page 30), there is very little in the Bible to assist us in forming an idea of
the appearance of the Temple as rebuilt after the return from the Captivity. That
its facade was 60 cubits broad by 60 cubits in height seems perfectly clear ; but
the other dimensions we only obtain from the descriptions of the earlier Temple
in the Book of Kings, or from the vision of Ezekiel. These no doubt give them
with fairly approximate certainty. This, however, adds little to our knowledge
beyond confirming the presumption that all the earlier Temples were as nearly as
possible the same. The one new fact is, that we have both in Ezra and Esdras
the same specification which we before alluded to as found in the Book of Kings,1
that the Temple was built with “three rows of great” (or hewn) “stones, and a
row of new timber.” 2 In this instance, however, the description appears to
apply to the body of the house itself, and not to the courts ; and if so, I fancy
that it refers, or was meant to refer, to the three rows of pillars or squared
stones that supported the fronts of the verandahs of the cells. I am quite
ready to admit that neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint quite bears out this
translation, if taken literally ; but I do not doubt that the pillars did exist, and
I do not know to what else the words can refer. To reconcile this theory with
the text, it would be necessary to insert the words “ between each,” so as to
make the sentence stand : — “ Three rows of hewn stones, with a row or roof
of timber between each.” In this case the arrangement would be as shown
in the diagram opposite, which would then explain the expression ; but I by
no means would insist on this.

Josephus is of little assistance to us here. He was so prepossessed with
the idea that the dimensions of Solomon’s Temple, both in extent and height,
were identical with those of Herod's that he continually confounds the one
with the other, so that no dependence can be placed on his statements in this
respect. He knew, however, that this intermediate Temple was only 60 cubits
high, and represents Herod as promising that he would add the 60 cubits that
were deficient from the height of Solomon’s building, and restore the original
120 cubits.3 As we shall afterwards see, he apparently did effect this, but, in the

1 1 Kings vi. 36.

2 Ezra vi. 4 ; Esdras vi. 25.

3 Josephus xv. 11, 1.

Chap. IX.

THE TEMPLE OF ZERUBBABEL.

first place, by increasing the width to 100 cubits, and probably raising the two
towers only to the whole height specified.

In this dearth of information from our usual authorities, it is most fortunate
that in Hecatseus of Abdera we have the testimony of an eye-witness, who not
only could observe correctly, but could describe with a terseness and precision
we so sadly miss in the confused rhetorical flourishes of Josephus. As there is
not one of Hecatseus’ statements that cannot be confirmed to a greater or less
extent from independent testimony, what he says may almost always he accepted
implicitly as true, and is, as such, invaluable to us in the present instance. His
account is as follows : — “ Near the middle of the city of Jerusalem is a stone
enclosure, about 5 plethra” (or 500 feet) “in length by 100 cubits in breadth,
with double gateways. Inside there is a square altar, not made of hewn, but of

; i

11.— Diagram op Three Rows of Hewn Stones, with a Row op Cedar Beams, vertically.

rough unpolished stone, which measures 20 cubits on each side, and is 10 cubits
in height. Near to it is a large temple (01/07/ra), wherein is an altar and a
candlestick, both of gold, weighing two talents ; and in these is a light that is
never extinguished by day or by night. There is no image and no donation
therein, and neither tree nor grove, nor anything of that sort. The priests reside
therein, both day and night, performing certain purifications, and never drinking
one drop of wine whilst they are in the Temple.”1

The dimensions of the courts here given are exactly what we should expect
from other sources. For reasons above given, we learn that the courts which
Solomon built and Ezekiel saw in his vision were internally 300 cubits, or 450
feet, east and west ; and, if we add to this the thickness of the walls and the
probable projection of the eastern gate, we reach the length of 5 plethra, with

Josephus contra Apion. i. 22.

EARLY TEMPLES OF THE JEWS.

Part I.

quite sufficient accuracy for our purposes. The width, 100 cubits, is exactly
what we expect— it may be said, knew — not only from this being an exact
duplication of the court of the Tabernacle, but from all the other indications
in the Bible.

The description of the altar and its mode of construction is also exact. So is
his account of the Temple and its contents, so far as it goes, and of its furniture,
and of the duties of the priests. There is not, in fact, one word in his statements
that seems open to doubt, and our only regret is that his account is so brief ; not
that it is obscure for that reason, only our wish is that so accurate an observer
had written at greater length on a subject so interesting.

The principal facts, that interest us most at present, which we learn from
all this discussion, are, that only those portions of Ezekiel’s Temple which
are hatched in the woodcut (No. 8) were carried out after the Captivity.
Those drawn in black were not even attempted. Even if a southern court
was intended for Solomon’s Temple, neither it nor a northern court existed
in the fourth century B.c. ; nothing, indeed, beyond the two simple courts of
Solomon’s Temple. As regards the future Temple, we know, too, exactly from
Hecataeus’ description what it was that Herod is said to have doubled when
he rebuilt the Temple;1 for as this earlier Temple covered only 75,000 feet
(500 x 150), and Herod’s Temple was 600 feet square, or 360,000, he not only
doubled it, but made its area between four and five times as great ; so that
an}r argument derived from this source for increased dimensions of Herod’s
Temple is quite untenable, and could never have been put forward by any one
who had studied the whole question, instead of being content with fragments,
as is too frequently the case.

Our knowledge of the dimensions of this Temple is also important to us
in studying the history of the wars of the Jews, for it was this Temple that
Pompey attacked, and not the larger Temple afterwards constructed by Herod.
In Pompey ’s time, as indeed ever afterwards, the Temple was most easily
attacked from the north ; but even on that side “ there were great towers, and
a ditch had been dug.” 2 This ditch does not, however, seem to have been of
great extent, for Pompey filled it up one Sabbath morning when the Jews had
desisted from work. Its existence, however, is another proof of there being no
north court on that side. The wall mentioned in this paragraph is apparently
that one which, in the description of the Temple in the ‘ Wars of the Jews,’ is
said to have been broken down on the north side, in order “ that so much space
might be taken in as sufficed for the compass of the entire Temple.” 3 On the
other sides it seems to have been open, being sufficiently protected by its elevation
on the west and south sides towards the city.4

1 B. J. i. 21, l.

Ant. xiv. 4, 1.

3 B. J. v. 5, 1.

4 Ant. xiv. 4, 1.

Chap. IX.

THE TEMPLE OF ZERUBBABEL.

There seems also to have been a ravine somewhere on the north and east
sides, and Lewin, in his ‘Sketch of Jerusalem,’ insists strongly on the existence
of the “ so-called Kidron ravine ” existing in this neighbourhood as contra-
distinguished from the “ great Kidron valley.” The instances he quotes appear
to me sufficient to establish the fact that Josephus believed this to be the case ; 1
but it is impossible now to trace its course without excavating under the present
level surface of the Haram area, and till that is done, it is of little use insisting on
its existence. The only advantage we would derive from knowing its position
would be to understand certain rhetorical phrases of Josephus which are now
obscure from the want of that knowledge, but which, if taken only for what they
are worth, have but little influence on our knowledge of the subject.

1 Sketch of Jerusalem, 1861, pp. 206 et seqq.

Part II.

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

CHAPTER I.

EXTEENAL DIMENSIONS.

After what has been said of the earlier Temples at Jerusalem, we are now in a
position to ascertain, approximative^ at least, the position and dimensions of that
commenced by Herod nineteen years before the Christian era, and which was
not only by far the most magnificent of the series, but to Christians the most
interesting, as it was within its precincts that so many of the events recorded
in the New Testament actually took place.

It is in the first place quite certain that the Altar in this last Temple stood
on exactly the same spot originally chosen by David on the threshing-floor of
Araunali, and that the Holy of Holies of Herod’s Temple occupied exactly the
same relative position to the Altar that it did in Solomon’s ; and though not so
capable of direct proof, it is nearly as certain that Solomon’s porch stood at the
same distance eastward from the Altar in both Temples.

With these three fixed points, it only remains to ascertain what were the
external dimensions of the whole building, and on this point Josephus leaves
us no room for doubt or hesitation. In the ‘ Antiquities,’ he says : — ■“ The whole
enclosure was 4 stadia in circuit, each side or angle being 1 stadium in extent.”1
He then goes on to mention the porch or the double cloisters which ornamented
its eastern side, facing the gates of the Temple itself, which stood “ opposite the
middle of this porch,” and which, he adds, had been adorned by many kings in
former times. It has, however, been contended that Josephus is here speaking of
Solomon’s, not of Herod’s Temple, but a careful study of the context dispels the
idea. In his 8th book he had already described Solomon’s Temple— incorrectly
enough, it must be confessed — but in its right place in his history. In his
15th book he is wholly concerned with the works of Herod, and though in
the chapter just referred to he does introduce an incidental allusion to Solomon’s.

1 Ant. xv. 11, 3.

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

it is onlv incidental, and ought to he put into brackets. An exact author would
have made a pause, and introduced Herod’s name as a nominative when he had
ceased speaking of the first, and was describing the works of the latter ; 1 but it
is quite evident from his allusion to the many kings who had adorned Solomon’s
porch since his time that he is speaking of what existed in his own day, not of
things as they were in Solomon’s time.

A little farther on, however, in the same chapter (section 5) he makes astate-
ment that admits of no ambiguity. After describing in minute detail the Stoa
Basilica which no one doubts was the work of Herod, and of him only, he states
categorically that it was one stadium or 600 feet in length. Farther on he
makes a similar statement with regard to Solomon’s Porch, which in the last age
of the city, the Jews requested Agrippa to rebuild, and which, Josephus states,
likewise measured, at that time, 400 cubits or 600 feet.2

In the ‘Wars of the Jews,’ Josephus’ testimony is equally distinct, but here
also, with his usual clumsiness, he expresses himself in such a manner as to admit
of his plain meaning being disputed. The cloisters of the outer court, he says,
“ were 30 cubits in breadth, and their whole circumference, including also that of
the Antonia, was 6 stadia.” 3 The one question, therefore, is how much we must
deduct from the 6 stadia for the circumference of the Antonia. This can only
be directly ascertained when we know what the dimensions of the Antonia
actually were ; but I think it may safely be asserted that a building with “ four
great angle towers, and containing courts and baths and broad spaces for camps,
and having all the conveniences that cities required, and by its magnificence
seeming a palace,”4 must have required a circumference of 2 stadia at least, and
this consequently brings us back to a building the south side of which, we are
distinctly told, was 1 stadium and the east side 400 cubits in length.5 There is
not, in fact, in the whole works of Josephus a single statement in which he is so
consistent and persistent as this. It is true, he sometimes confounds what was
done by Solomon with what was really the work of later times, though this is,
under the circumstances, hardly to be wondered at ; but he never deviates one inch
either in excess or diminution from the statement that the Temple was a square
measuring 600 feet each way. He may be right or he may be wrong, but this
is his testimony.

Those whose views of the Temple area are not in accord with the statement
of Josephus appeal first to the Talmud, which states the dimensions of the
“ mountain of the house ” as 500 cubits. But this, as stated above, I believe to
be entirely a misconception of the statement of Ezekiel that the boundaries of
the sanctuary were 500 reeds, 3000 cubits, each way. Had the Rabbis been able

: My impression is that the break ought to occur after dnereix i&v, and tbe new sentence b'gin with "Avaidev,
but any one nmy place it where he thinks Lest, provided it comes before the passage quoted above.

2 Ant. xx. 9, 7. 3 II. J. v. 5, 2. 4 B. J. v. 5, 8. 6 Ant. xx. 10, 7.

Chap. I.

EXTERNAL DIMENSIONS.

to distribute tbe extra 100 cubits, which their reading gave them, over the whole
of the courts, so as to make up a more magnificent whole, it might now have been
difficult, from their point of view, to prove that they were in error. As, however,
their only device was to put the whole 100 cubits into the Court of the Women,
making that 135 cubits square, while the Court of the Men of Israel remained
only 11 cubits wide by 135 long, the whole thing bears absurdity on the face of
it, and on this ground alone might safely be rejected. Though this measurement
was adopted by the Rabbis for the express purpose of reconciling the dimensions
of Herod’s Temple with those of the Temple described by Ezekiel, had they
taken the pains of protracting what the prophet specified, they would have found
out that they were directly contradicting and disproving his statements. Still
more so, had they gone back to the Books of Kings and Chronicles, they would
have found the dimensions they were adopting utterly irreconcilable with those
there quoted. It thus happens that in their mistaken zeal to reconcile the
dimensions of ancient with those of the more modern temples, they have done
more to confuse the subject, and to render such reconciliation impossible, than
could well be done by any literal statement of the facts as they really were,
however much these might at first sight appear to differ from one another.1

The real and practical refutation, however, of all such theories is to be found
in the Ordnance Survey, whose testimony on such matters must be considered as
final, and, so far as I am capable of understanding the matter, is so, in the present
instance.

Whatever other differences of opinion may exist with regard to the position
or dimensions of the Temple at Jerusalem, all, I believe, are now agreed that the
south-west angle of the Haram area is identical with the south-west angle of the
Temple, not only because it is the only light angle of the Haram, but from the
existence there of the remains of the archway known as Robinson’s arch, which
was undoubtedly a means of access from the city to the Temple. The style, too,
of the masonry and all other indications suggest this, and it seems quite impos-
sible to account for what we still can see except on this hypothesis. This is so
generally admitted that it is hardly worth while arguing the point, and if this is
so, it follows that the western wall of the Haram, as far north, at least, as the
Jews’ Wailing Place, is part of the west wall of the Temple ; and in like manner
the south wall of the Haram, as far, at least, as the Double Gateway, is identical
in plan with the south wall of the Temple as rebuilt by Herod. Assuming this
to be so, we further find, at the distance of exactly 600 feet from the southern

1 I do not know any more complete reductio ad
absurdum than the plan of the Temple just published
by the Rev. Dr. Barclay, in his work entitled “The
Talmud.' It is avowedly based wholly on the writings
of the Rabbis, quite irrespective of either Josephus or
the Ordnance Survey, and is only intended to illustrate

their writings. The relative importance given to the
court of the women in this plan over those of the
men of Israel, or even that of the priests, is, in my
opinion, quite sufficient to show how mistaken the
Rabbis must have been in this respect.

THE TEMPLE OP HEROD.

Part II.

wall, and perfectly parallel with it, a terrace wall, now supporting the platform of
the Dome of the Rock, and above that the hare rocky summit of the hill, rising
now, as it always did, 20 or 21 feet above the lower platform.

In like manner, when we measure eastward from the western face of the
Haram, at a distance a little less than 600 feet, the ground sinks suddenly, at the
Triple Gateway, to a platform 40 feet, as before mentioned, below the level of
the general surface of the intervening area. Between these two points we have a
perfectly level area, measuring about 600 feet each way ; perfectly solid through-
out, except where pierced by two tunnel gateways, the presence of which we are
led to expect, and where it is hollowed out into cisterns, which we also know did
exist under the area of the Temple.1 These latter are also important, as showing
us the rock existing very near the surface, though, in consequence of the area
being paved, we cannot now detect its presence on the surface, except near the
north-eastern angle of this square platform.

We have, unfortunately, no means of knowing in what state the surface of
the rock is under the pavement of the upper platform, and consequently no
direct evidence from the Survey to jirove or disprove any theory that may be
advanced, except the fatal one, that the Sakhra is situated 800 feet from the
southern wall ; and by no possible means can any testimony, either in Josephus
or the Talmud, be stretched so as to include that distance within the limits of the
Temple area, provided it is admitted, which no one seems to doubt, that the
southern wall of the Haram is one of the terrace walls of the platform on
which the Temple stood.

One of the most common arguments used by those that wish to extend the
Temple is the assertion of Josephus, that, “ when Herod rebuilt the Temple, and
encompassed a piece of land about it with a wall, which land was twice as large
as that before enclosed ” ; 2 but they forget to ascertain what the area of the
previous Temples was. Solomon’s, as already explained, measured 300 by 100
cubits, and covered, consequently, 67,500 square feet. Ezekiel’s Temple, even
assuming it to have been a square of 300 cubits, would even in that case cover
only 202,500 square feet ; but in reality it was composed of six courts of 100 cubits
each, or 135,000, so that doubling that would only give 270,000, while Herod’s
Temple measured 600x600 = 360,000 square feet. What in reality he did
double, as pointed out above, was the Temple described by Ilecateus {supra,
page 68), which measured 500 feet hy 150, or 75,000 square feet, so that in reality
the area of Herod’s Temple was between four or five times as great as that of
any previous Temple which had any real existence. More than even this, it
was twice as great as that dreamt of by an enthusiastic prophet languishing in
captivity, and anxious for the glories of his people, who, he hoped, might
one day revive the greatness of their earlier kings.

1 Tacitus, Hist. v. 1.

2 B. J. i. 21, 1.

Chap. I.

EXTERNAL DIMENSIONS.

There seems thus no excuse for an extension north and south. Eastward,
the case is even clearer, for, in addition to the arguments just adduced, the
platform there, as already mentioned, sinks 40 feet below the surface of the 600
feet area just described, and nothing was apparently ever erected upon it till
the depression was filled up by “weak vaults,” “probably of the time of
Justinian.” 1 Be this as it may, it is quite certain that the Stoa Basilica, which
was the most remarkable feature of Herod’s Temple, never extended beyond
600 feet from the south-west angle. Had it done so, some piers or foundations
must have remained to indicate how it was supported, but there is absolutely
nothing, and no remains are found in the vaults that can be assigned to a
building of this class. In fact, there is no point in the whole topography
of Jerusalem more certain than that the Stoa Basilica of the Temple did
not extend over the area of these vaults ; 2 and while that is so, the
boundary of the Temple to the eastward is fixed with the same certainty that
it is to the southward and westward. The Ordnance Survey also indicates the
position of the northern boundary, hut not with the same absolute certainty.
Yet if the Temple was square in figure — and this no one seems to doubt — it
could not have been far from the position of the southern terrace wall of the
upper platform.

1 Warren’s Underground Jerusalem, pp. 347 and 325.

2 When I wrote the article in the Dictionary of the
Bible, on the Temple, I published the annexed diagram
to show how impossible it was that Herod should have
erected these arches to support his great portico.
Absurd as the diagram makes it appear, it really

understates the case. Captain Warren, notwithstanding
this and his own admission, just quoted, that they were
probably of the time of Justinian, persists in believing
that the Stoa Basilica extended to the eastern wall. If,
however, he thinks there is anything wrong in the
diagram, and can show how the pillars were supported,

12. — Longitudinal and Transverse Sections of the Vaults in the South-eastern Angle of the Haram Area.

(From a drawing by Arundale.)

let him publish another and explain how this could
be done. At present he simply ignores it, relying on
the ignorance or carelessness of his readers, who, to save
themselves trouble, are willing to believe anything that
is confidently asserted by anyone they think ought to
know ; but a diagram is not so easily got over, and

I trust therefore that Captain Warren will favour us
with one. It will be more to the purpose than his
arguments in the Athenamm in June and July 1875,
when his theory was so completely refuted that he
seems since to have tried to forget all about it.

THE TEMPLE OP HEP, OP.

Pakt II.

If any insuperable difficulty were found in accommodating all the various
buildings of the Temple within an area so circumscribed, we might pause
before adopting these dimensions, but then it would only be to confess that
the problem was insoluble, and that it was impossible to reconcile the facts
disclosed by the Survey with the dimensions given in the Bible, when combined
with those quoted by Josephus and the Talmud. If, however, it can be shown
that there is not only room for all, but that with a larger space the difficulties
of restoring the plan would be infinitely increased, this objection falls at once to
the ground. On the other hand, if we take the dimensions of the solid platform
as we find it in the Ordnance Survey, 600 by 585 feet, and protract on it the plan
of the Temple as given by our authorities, it is found to be easy to co-ordinate the
whole, and to restore the plan, at least, of the Temple with a precision that is
very remarkable, considering all the vicissitudes through which it has passed.
If this can be done, it is the best, and probably a sufficient, answer to those
who plead for larger dimensions, and such a restoration is consequently what
it is proposed to attempt in the next succeeding chapters.

Chap. II.

THE COUET OF THE GENTILES.

CHAPTER II.

THE COUET OF THE GENTILES.

The first essential, before attempting to restore tbe plan of the Temple, is to
ascertain what were the exact dimensions of the platform on which it stood. This,
for reasons given above (page 11), is by no means so easy a task as might at first
sight be supposed ; but after repeated trials I have come to the conclusion that its
dimensions east, and west — measured from the face of the west wall a little south
of the Jews’ Wailing Place to the eastern face of wall running up from the Triple
Gateway — were 585 feet, or 15 feet (10 cubits) less than the 600 feet ascribed
to it by Josephus. North and south its dimensions are exactly 600 feet, measured
from the southern face of the terrace wall supporting the platform of the Dome of
the Rock to the face of the southern wall near the double gates. As, however,
the northern boundary of this space must be the inner face of the north wall — if it
was a wall of the Temple at all — we must add to this its thickness. This I have
assumed to be 6 cubits, or 9 or 10 feet, as a probable width ; its real dimensions
could only be ascertained by digging, and that would not be allowed under the
present regime. Instead, therefore, of an exact square 1 stadium, or 600 feet,
each way, we have only, according to the Ordnance Survey, a rectangular area
measuring 585 feet east and west, by 610 feet north and south; which con-
sequently we must, for the present at least, assume to represent the external
dimensions of the Temple.

It may seem a little disappointing at first sight to find the actual dimensions
15 feet less in one direction, and 10 feet more in another, than those which
Josephus states so repeatedly with such apparent precision. They are, however,
sufficiently near to justify a historian in making the assertion he does, but whether
they do so or not is of little consequence for our present purposes. They are the
dimensions to which Herod’s architects had to work, and to which we consequently
must adhere, in attempting to understand what they did. Even, however, if we
are inclined to record this among the many proofs how little Josephus’ accuracy
is to be depended upon in matters of detail, it is satisfactory to find that, when
looked closely into, these dimensions fit the internal arrangements of the Temple
far better than those he quotes. ITad the Temple area been an exact square of
600 feet each way, it wonld have been very difficult, if indeed it were possible, to
make the external arrangements agree with the internal. As it is, they fit one
another, as we hope presently to be able to show, within very narrow limits of

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

deviation. There may be a cubit or two in some places which may be retrenched
or added, but, beyond this, nothing seems doubtful in plan. In elevation, the case
may be different, but of that hereafter. Before, however, going further, it may
be as well to point out that all the four angles of this platform are right angles,
and its sides consequently perfectly parallel to one another, which cannot be said
of any other platform hitherto suggested for the site of the Temple. Of the four
angles of the Haram, that at the south-west is the only one which is really and
practically rectangular.

It need hardly be remarked here that the real cause which has rendered the
site of the Temple doubtful, and its restoration difficult, arises from the fulfilment
of the prophecy in the Gospels.1 It is literally a fact, that not one stone, above
ground, remains upon another of that once glorious edifice : nor have we any
exact means of knowing when this destruction was completed. Enough certainly
remained at the time of the Moslem conquest in the seventh century to permit of
the conquerors identifying its features without fail, and to enable Abd-el-Malek
at the end of that century to centre his mosque on the altar of the Jewish Temple
with minute exactness. At present, however, we look in vain for any feature,
or any stone that can be supposed to have belonged to the Jewish Temple.
Under ground, however, the case is fortunately different. There are few
things in the topography of Jerusalem so certain as that the double gates under
the mosque El Aksa, and the vestibule within, as far at least as the three
monolithic pillars extend, with the roof over them, are really parts of the sub-
structures of the Stoa Basilica which Herod added to the Temple. It is as certain
that they represent the gate Huldah of the Talmud, which led direct to the
Water Gate of the inner Temple, and thence direct to the Altar.2 If, therefore, a
line is drawn at right angles to the southern front along the line of arches that
divide the passage leading north from that gateway, the first presumption is that
it will point out the position of the centre of the Altar. If that line is extended
farther north, it cuts the centre of a flight of steps leading to the upper platform,
but not symmetrically with the Dome of the Rock, which stands there, and which
may consequently mark the position of the northern gate called Teri or Tadi in
the Talmud.

This presumption arises to something like certainty when we come to take
the dimensions from the Ordnance Survey. As was pointed out in Chapter V.
Part I., when describing Solomon’s Temple, the great court was a double square,
200 by 100 cubits, in the centre of the eastern portion of which stood the Altar,
and beyond this, eastward, was the “ new ” or “ outer court,” 100 cubits square, the
east side of which was called Solomon’s Porch.3 The distance, therefore, from the
centre of the Altar to the inner face of the wall at the back of Solomon’s Porch
ought to be 150 cubits, or 225 feet, plus the thickness of the wall, if any, that may

1 Matthew xxiv. 2 ; Mark xiii. 2 ; Luke xix. 44.

2 Middoth i. 3, 4; Lightfoot, p. 350.

3 Ante, p. 38.

Chap. II.

THE COURT OF THE GENTILES.

have separated the two courts. The actual dimensions taken from the Ordnance
Survey, measured from the wall on the west side of the Triple Gateway to the
centre of the monolith in the vestibule of the Double Gateway, which certainly
belongs to Herod’s Temple, are 235 or 237 feet, according as we measure from
the face of the wall in the recesses or from the face of the piers. This leaves
10 or 12 feet to be apportioned between the outer wall of the Temple and the
partition, if any, that existed between the two courts in Solomon’s time. This is
so exactly what we would expect from other sources that we may feel perfectly
certain that what was here intended was to set out 150 cubits from the central
point of the Altar to the inner face of the wall at the hack of Solomon’s Porch.
This being so, it seems hardly doubtful that, if a line be drawn north and south
from the centre of the monolith in the vestibule of the gate Huldah to the centre
of the monolith at the top of the stairs on the north, this line will pass through
the centre of the Altar, and fix its position east and west to within a very few
inches, supposing the Temple to have been set out with minute accuracy, which,
however, is by no means certain. It has also the advantage of giving us a
base-line to which all our dimensions east and west may be referred.

Unfortunately there are no landmarks by which we can fix the centre of the
Altar north and south in the same manner. That can be obtained by calculation
— as we shall presently see — to within a cubit or thereabouts, probably with
absolute accuracy ; but the only base-line on the ground to which we can refer
our measurements north and south is that drawn from the centre of the bridge
— known as Robinson’s arch — along the middle aisle of the Stoa Basilica.
According to Wilson the south face of the arch is 39 feet from the angle of the
wall, and the arch 50 feet in width.1 Its centre, consequently, is 64 feet from
the south wall. Deducting from this half the width of the centre aisle, or 22^ feet,
we reach the centre of the great monolith in the vestibule, which stands at
40 or 40 feet 6 inches (27 cubits ?) from the face of the outer wall, and this accords
perfectly with the position of one of the pillars of the Stoa above,2 and, so far as
one instance can go, proves not only the position of the Stoa, but the accuracy of
Josephus' description of the dimensions. Deducting from this the width of the
southern aisle 30 feet, there remain 1P5 feet, say, 8 cubits, which, I take it, may
have been made up of a wall 4 feet in thickness and a parapet of 7i feet. The
roof of this Stoa was not flat like those of the other three, nor capable of defence,
and it was consequently necessary that there should be some sort of cliemin des
rondes, or parapet, on this face, on the level of the floor of the Temple from
which the defence could be carried on.

1 Notes on the Survey, by Major Wilson, p. 27.

2 This is just one of those instances where figured
dimensions would he so valuable. The two plans
being superimposed, the one under ground, the other
above, it is not so absolutely certain that they are so
accurately engraved as when all are on the same plane,

while the plan in Wilson’s Notes, pi. xvi., is on too
small a scale and too carelessly engraved to be of much
use here. There may consequently be an error to the
extent of a foot or so in this dimension, but I believe it
to be very nearly correct if not quite so.

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

Josephus’ description of the Stoa Basilica is so detailed that there is no great
difficulty in understanding its general arrangements, though it requires a little
ingenuity to make them fit exactly with those on the other three sides of the
court. “On the south front of the Temple stood the royal cloisters with three
aisles, which reached from the east valley unto the west, for it was impossible
they should reach any further ” 1 (westward). Passing over the absurd hyper-
bolical language in which he describes their height, he goes on to say : — “ The

13. — Diagram Plan Section of the Stoa Basilica and Enclosure or Inner Temple, with Substructures.

(Scale, 50 feet to 1 inch.)

cloisters had pillars that stood in four rows, one over against the other, all
along ; for the fourth row was interwoven into the wall, which was also of stone,
and the diameter of each pillar was such that three men might with their arms
extended fathom it round and join their hands again, while its height was 27 feet,
with a double spiral at its base, and the number of pillars in that Stoa was 162.
Their capitals were made with sculpture of the Corinthian order.” “ These four
rows of pillars included three intervals for walking ; two of which walks were

1 Ant. xv. 11, 5.

Chap. II.

THE COURT OF THE GENTILES.

similar to each other.” “ The breadth of each of them was 30 feet, their length
was 1 stadium (600 feet), and their height 50 feet, but the breadth of the middle
aisle and cloister was one and a half that of the others, and the height was double.
The roofs were adorned with deep sculptures in wood, representing many sorts of
figures,” &C.1

In this description there appears to be only one thing which is a palpable
mistake. If the pillars were of the Corinthian order, and only 27 feet in height,
they could hardly have been even 3 feet in diameter, or more than 9 feet in
circumference, and consequently two very short men could easily have joined
hands round them, nor would it be possible to have eked out the order to 50 feet,
as stated in the text. If we might assume that 27 cubits, or 40 feet, were meant,
the whole would be intelligible, but I believe the true solution is to be found in
the ‘ Wars of the Jews,’ where the pillars — but this time apparently of the minor
cloisters — are stated as 25 cubits, or 37 feet 6 inches, in height.2 Somehow or
other, these numbers seem to have got transposed, though it is difficult to see how
such a mistake could have arisen. It is certain, however, that pillars that
required three men to span them, and were parts of an order 50 feet in height,
must have been at least 4 feet in diameter, and could hardly have been less than
40 feet in height. Those of the minor porticos on the other three sides of the
Court of the Gentiles may very well have been 2 feet 8 inches to 3 feet in
diameter, and 27 feet high.

With regard to the arrangement of these 162 columns, it would be sufficient
for all topographical and historical purposes to assert that they were ranged in
four rows, spaced 10 cubits apart from centre to centre; and that the two odd
columns were employed to carry the stone entablature across the opening of the
central aisle at the end of the bridge, where its width was exactly 30 cubits, or
three intercolumniations. Thus thirty-nine intercolumniations would give 390
cubits, two half-columns, say 3, and the thickness of the outside walls on the east
and west, say 7, or 400 cubits in all. It is nearly certain that 10 cubits was the
intercolumniation aimed at, as all the transverse dimensions are multiples of 10,
and in all instances are measured from the centre of one column to the centre
of the next. Unless, therefore, we are allowed to assume that, though having
this object in view, they could not attain it without cutting off a few inches
from each intercolumniation in one direction, — which I believe to be quite inadmis-
sible,— the result would be that, having a length of only 390 cubits to deal with,
there would, according to the above scheme, be one intercolumniation, or 10 cubits,
in excess, which is sufficient to render this theory of the spacing untenable.

A second difficulty is that on the east and west the cloisters were only double,
so that, if the central range was in the centre, it would fall between two inter-
columniations of the great Stoa. This difficulty might be obviated by dividing

1 Ant. Jud. xv. 11, 5. 2 Bel. Jud. v. 5, 2.

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

the smaller porticos, unequally, into an outer aisle of 10 cubits, and an inner of
20 cubits or two intercolumniations. This, however, in a flat-roofed building,
meant for defence, would be a source of weakness, which could hardly be tolerated,
while it is directly contradicted by the only similar example that is known to
exist. In the Temple of the Sun, at Palmyra,1 there are four porticos surround-
ing the sides of a great square enclosure so similar in extent (600 feet square) and
arrangement to that at Jerusalem that there seems no doubt the one was copied
from the other, or from some third example which may have been the type of both.
There the smaller porticos are double and equally spaced, but are joined to the
greater porticos, by compound columns, a form that does not appear to have been
invented in Herod’s time. Even supposing, however, that they were known as
early, and might consequently be introduced here, this would not obviate the
necessity of equal spacing in the side cloisters, where the constructive necessities,
coupled with the Palmyrene example, render its existence nearly certain.
Assuming this to be so, the difficulty is easily got over by coupling some of
the pillars of the great portico in the manner shown in the plan (Plate II.),
a mode of treatment perfectly consonant with what is found at Palmyra,
Baalbec, and elsewhere, and here introduced, I fancy, with the most pleasing
effect. That some of the pillars were coupled seems evident from the mode
in which the stairs ascending from the gate Huldah are introduced. According
to the Ordnance Survey, the clear width of the passage between the walls is
a little over 40 feet ; and supposing a pillar to stand on each side of this
opening, and one in the centre — as shown in woodcut No. 13 — there would be
two spaces for three intercolumniations, or 45 feet ; but if we make the next two
intercolumniations 7'5 feet from centre to centre, we resume our equal spacing
without difficulty. I need hardly remark that the effect of this coupling of the
pillars at the head of these stairs would be most appropriate, architecturally.
Without it, there would be nothing to mark the position of the stairs externally,
but leading up to the Water Gate and down to the gate Huldah, this accentuation
becomes almost indispensable.

If, consequently, it is conceded that it is admissible to couple the columns
where necessary, the arrangement of the others does not seem difficult. If a stone
architrave was carried across the central aisle at its entrance from the bridge, the
width being 45 feet, it would be indispensable that two pillars should be employed
to carry it. In like manner, unless the ends of the side aisles were built up solidly,
which seems to be most unlikely, they would require one pillar each to support
their entablature, with the regulation width of 10 cubits, or 15 feet.

If these adjustments are admitted, you have the whole 162 columns arranged,
as shown on Plate II., in the allotted space of 390 cubits east and west in a
manner that appears to me eminently beautiful as an architectural design, and

Wood’s Palmyra, pi. iii.

Chap. II.

THE COURT OF THE GENTILES.

except when varied for a distinct and easily recognisable object, they are in all
instances exactly 10 cubits, or 15 feet, apart from centre to centre.

Notwithstanding all this, I am still far from asserting that this was the
arrangement in all its details that was actually adopted by Herod’s architects, or
that some other may not now be proposed that would meet the exigencies of the
case equally well ; but I do assert that all the written or topographical, as well as
the architectural requirements of the case, so far as they are at present known,
are satisfied by the arrangement proposed ; and this being so, it may be allowed
to stand till some better is put forward to take its place. But whether arranged
on this or any other scheme, the size of these pillars, their number, and the
space over which they were spread, must have rendered this one of the most
magnificent Stoas in either ancient or modern times. As I have before pointed
out.,1 it may convey some idea of its dimensions if we compare it with York,
the largest of our English cathedrals. If the transepts of that church were
removed from the centre, and added to the ends, we should have a building of
about the same length and nearly also of the same section, and, barring the style,
not differing much in material and construction. In the English example,
however, the church is the great and principal object of the whole design,
to which all things were subordinate. At Jerusalem, the Stoa was only the
vestibule or principal approach to the Temple itself, which, in the eyes of the
Jews at least, surpassed it in beauty and magnificence as much as it did in
height or holiness.

As this magnificent Stoa formed the principal entrance to the Temple from
the city, which, according to Josephus, lay over against it like a theatre,2 it,
no doubt, was connected with it by a bridge or causeway of proportionate
grandeur, but it still, strange to sa}', remains a mystery how this was con-
structed. Many years ago, Ur. Robinson observed the springing of an arch
50 feet wide at 39 feet, as already mentioned, from the south-west angle of the
Haram. It was composed of stones of the largest size used in these constructions,
and altogether worthy of the situation. In 1867, Captain Warren discovered the
substructure of the next pier at a distance of 4U6 inches from the wall, showing
that the arch was of that width, while its height, from the pavement which at one
time floored it, wras 70 feet.3 Beyond this he sunk seven or eight shafts to the
westward, towards the upper city, but failed to find any remains which would
explain how the bridge was continued over a distance of about 280 feet before it
meets the slope of the upper city. Whether this failure arose from the mode in
which the investigation was conducted, or from the materials having been
removed and utilised elsewhere, is by no means clear ; but, from the extent to
which the ground has been explored, the probability seems to be that we may

1 The Holy Sepulchre and Temple at Jerusalem, 1865, p. 95.

3 Recovery of Jerusalem, pp. 94 et seqq.

2 Ant. Jud. xv. 11, 5.

THE TEMPLE OF HEBOD.

Part II.

never get material evidence of how it was constructed, while unfortunately our
friend Josephus does not help us much here, as his account of the gates of the
Temple on this side is by no means satisfactory. On the western side of the Temple,
he says, there were four gates. The first led to the king’s palace by a causeway
across the intermediate valley, two led to the suburbs, and the fourth to the other
city, where the road descended by many steps into the valley, thence up again
by an ascent to the city, which lay over against (the Temple) like a theatre.1

The first of these we can have little difficulty in identifying with the
causeway which still leads to the Bab as Silsile, which is still one of the principal
entrances to the ITaram, and which then led through the precincts of the Turris

14. — Diagram representing the supposed Plan and Elevation op the Causeway across the Tyropjeon Valley.

Antonia to the palace of the Asmonean kings above the Xystus, which was then
the royal residence of Jerusalem.2 It could not be the one that led down by
many steps to the valley and up again, because in it is embedded the aqueduct
that brought water, from Solomon’s pools, to the Temple area, and because it was
apparently close to the Xystus, where the first wall crossed the valley,3 which it
could not have done farther south than this.

If this is so, it is evident that the bridge or causeway with steps can only
be that extending from the upper city to the Stoa Basilica. Still it seems incon-
ceivable that the architects could have been so stupid, when they wanted to ascend

1 Ant. xv. 11, 5.

2 Bel. Jud. ii. 16, 3.

3 Bel. Jud. v. 4, 2.

Chap. II.

THE COURT OP THE GENTILES.

to the streets of a town 30 feet above the level of the Temple platform, that they
should first descend 40 feet into the valley, only to reascend some 7 0 feet into the
city. The only solution of the difficulty that occurs to me is that, after the first
two arches from the Temple area — I think there is evidence of two1— the causeway
assumed a solid form, and two flights of steps descended right and left to the
valley, while the central division continued on a level or slightly rising
gradient to the upper city.2 Such an arrangement would be convenient and
dignified, and as the retaining walls need not have been of any great thickness,
nor composed of large stones, this may account for their disappearance. Either
it may be that the central roadway was reduced to 30 feet after the first two
arches, and the lateral stairs were 10 feet or 10 cubits respectively, or they
may have been added altogether, and the roadway continued 50 feet broad
to the upper city.

Josephus’ assertion that two gates led from the Temple to Parbar, or the
suburbs, on the west side of the Temple, is assumed to be incorrect, as not borne
out by recent researches. Major Wilson and Captain Warren examined the
whole of the western wall to such an extent as almost to prove that only
one exists between the causeway (Wilsou's arch) and the bridge known as
Robinson’s arch. I hope, however, farther on to be able to show that the fourth
gate was one that led through or from the Antonia to the suburbs. Josephus
certainly considered the Temple and the Antonia as parts of one great whole ; so
much so indeed that he comprehends both in one perimeter of 6 stadia ; and
there is nothing strange in his enumerating, as gates of the Temple, the four
entrances that certainly existed on the west side, though one of these more
properly belonged to the Antonia only. It is a point on which it is extremely
unlikety he would be mistaken, aud if this is not the true solution, there is little
doubt another will reward further investigation. But to this we shall return
presently.

The gateway that was found about 180 feet north of Robinson’s arch bears
generally the name of “Barclay’s,” from his being the first to observe it. By
the Moslems it is called the Gate of Burak, and they still show the ring by
which the Prophet fastened his monture on the night when he ascended from
the Temple at Jerusalem to Paradise — a tradition of some value to our topography,
because it shows that, at the time it was invented, the Mahomedans were
perfectly well aware that this was the chamber nearest to the Holy of Holies
of the Jewish Temple of all those which existed or exist in the Haram area.

1 Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 98.

2 The facility with which the bridge was broken
down in Pompey’s time would lead to the supposition
that it was then constructed of wood (B. J. i. 7, 3 ;
Ant. xiv. 42). But this is of little importance for our
present purpose. The Stoa Basilica and the ground on

which it stood were first raised by Herod, and did not
exist in Pompey’s time. Consequently, any bridge that
then existed must have been of a totally different
nature from that we find now, even if erected in the
same place.

3 B. J. v. 5, 2.

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

This gateway is situated, as nearly as may be, halfway between what I
believe to be the southern wall of the precincts of the Antonia and the great
causeway leading to the Stoa Basilica ; so central, indeed, to the exposed part of
this face that it seems extremely improbable that a second gateway should
exist in its vicinity. The sill of the gateway is 50 feet below the level of the
Temple area,1 and runs inward at right angles to the wall for about 85 feet,
when it turns abruptly to the right, and partly by an inclined plane, partly
apparently by steps, rose to the level of the platform area just at the angle of
the inner Temple. Major Wilson is of opinion that this abrupt deflexion is owing
to its meeting the rock, which, he believes, here assumes something of a cliff-like
form. This, I, too, consider as extremely probable, but it also appears to me that
the architectural exigencies of the case as shown in the plau, Plate II., are as

10 20 30 40 50 100 FT

I- -4 »- » 1- i 1 —

15. — Section North and South through Barclay’s Gateway.
(From an unpublished plate by Major Wilson.)2

cogent, and meet all the difficulties of the case in a most satisfactory manner. The
passage went inwards till it cleared the jiortico of the court, and then rose to the
surface in the open part of the Court of the Gentiles at a distance of 12 cubits
from the front of the portico, and 7 cubits, as will presently be explained, from
the Chel that surrounded the Temple on this side. The width of the passage
being 11 cubits, these measurements make up the 30 cubits of the hypsethral part
of this court. This disposition of the passage affords another proof — if any were
wanted — that the steps leading up to the Chel were omitted on this side. There
is still room for them, but the architects would hardly have left a passage of only

I cubit between the lowest step and the opening of the rising passage — 10 or

II feet is a reasonable pathway — but the object, evidently, was to leave as much
space free on the west side next the portico as could be conveniently done.
Assuming the south edge of the modern cistern to rejiresent the top step of the

Recovery of Jerusalem, pp. Ill et seqq.

2 The steps in cistern 20 are inserted by me.

Chap. II.

THE COURT OP THE GENTILES.

stairs, it is exactly flush with the northern boundary of the southern Court of
the Gentiles ; but till this is explored more carefully, we cannot ascertain how far
the steps extended downwards, or where they met the inclined plane from the
north. That, however, is of comparatively little consequence; what interests us
most here is to know that, like the Huldah Gateway, this one from the Parbar
fits in the minutest particulars with the restoration we are now proposing, but
accords with no other that has yet been attempted.

In his description of the Temple, Josephus makes no mention of any external
gateway on the north side of the Temple.1 The Rabbis, on the contrary, place
the gate Tadi or Teri in the locality indicated above, as probably exactly opposite
the gate Huldah. They admit, however, that it was not used for any ordinary
purpose,2 though at the end of the chapter they describe the priests going out
by it on certain occasions.3 As no mention is made of it in the siege, I fancy it
must have been walled up before that time in order to strengthen the fortifications
on the northern, which seems always to have been the weakest and most
vulnerable, side of the Temple.4 Had it been a gateway of the usual form, it
is hardly possible that no mention should have been made of it in the long
struggles which Josephus describes as taking place in this angle between the
Temple and the Antonia.

In the same manner, Josephus makes no mention of an outer gate on the
eastern side of the Temple, while the Rabbis are quite positive that the gate
Shushan was so situated. If they are correct in this, however, it is equally certain
that they omit all mention of the gate which led from the Court of the Gentiles
to the Court of the Women. This gate certainly existed, and, though inferior
in size and ornament to the gate Nicanor, which led from that court to the inner
court of the Temple, must have been of some importance, and, I am very much
inclined to believe, was the gate Shushan, which the Rabbis have confounded
with the outer gate. There can be no doubt that in Solomon’s time — as above
shown (Plate I.) — the principal entrance to the Temple was on the eastern face,
and there was then a gateway which may have borne this name, and on the inner
side of this court there was a second gate, which was then, as always, the principal
and most ornamental gate of the Temple. So far as I can make it out, the
confusion seems to have arisen in the minds of the Rabbis from the circumstance
that, when Solomon’s Court was cut in two, and one portion of it devoted to
the women and the other to the Gentiles, a third gate was, or rather would
have become, necessary. But as at the same time the necessity had also become

1 In the siege of the Temple by Cestius (B. J. ii. 19,

5) a northern gate seems to he mentioned, hut in such
a manner as to make it doubtful whether it belonged

to the outer or inner Temple. If the former, it seems

to have been walled up before the siege by Titus,

possibly in consequence of Cestius having penetrated
through it.

2 Middoth i. 3.

3 Middoth i. 9.

4 B. J. i. 17, 8; i. 7, 4; v. 7, 3.

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Pakt II.

apparent of fortifying the Temple, “ which before had stood all naked except
on the east side,” 1 this outer gate seems then to have been suppressed, and the
name transferred to the gate between the two inner courts.

Against this view we must put the persistent assertion of the Rabbis
that the red heifer was led through the gate Shushan out of the Temple and
conducted across the Red Heifer Bridge to the top of the Mount of Olives and
there burnt. The circumstances attending this important sacrifice are repeated by
the Rabbis so often, and in such detail, that it is difficult to believe they have not
some foundation in fact, though all the information we have regarding it rests
wholly on their unsupported testimony.2 There is no hint of it in the Bible or
Josephus, and when not corroborated by other circumstances, anything they
assert must be received with very considerable caution. If they, however, are
correct, there must have been, not only an eastern outer gate to the Temple, but
a bridge across the Ividron. To this we shall have occasion to return again, but
meanwhile it may be remarked that one of the most inexplicable things, about the
Jewish Temple, is to understand the mode by which not only the red heifers, but
the whole herds of cattle there sacrificed, were got in, and their carcasses and the
refuse afterwards removed. There is no hint anywhere how this was accom-
plished, and no one has yet, so far as I know, fairly looked the difficulty in the
face. The red heifers may, however, have fairly been got out in the same
manner as they were got in, even if an external gate did not exist on the eastern
face. On the whole, I am inclined to think the weight of evidence is against
the existence of an external eastern gate in Herod’s Temple, but it is a point
on which it is extremely difficult to form a decided opinion. If we knew how
the south-eastern angle of the Haram area was occupied at the time of the
rebuilding by Herod, we might find out ; but we are absolutely without evidence,
either written or topographical, on this point. Till, consequently, something
new is discovered that may throw light upon it, it is to be feared we must be
content to allow the decision, as to the existence of this external gateway to the
eastward, to remain in suspense.

Although nothing now remains in situ of all these magnificent colonnades
of the outer court of the Temple, there would probably be no great difficulty
in restoring them architecturally, if it were worth while making the attempt. In
the first place, because, of the quasi-secular character of this court, they probably
were of a comparatively pure Corinthian order, without much, if any, admixture
of Jewish feeling or local art ; but more so, because there are a number of
columns of a Corinthian order still standing in the Haram area, which originally,
in all probability, belonged to these colonnades. They are now generally used
as screens at the top of the various flights of steps leading to the platform on
the centre of which the Dome of the Rock stands, and, as they are certainly

1 B. J. v. 5, 1.

2 Middoth ii. 4 ; Lightfoot, p. 219.

Chap. II.

THE COURT OF THE GENTILES.

earlier than the time of Constantine, must consequently have belonged to the
Herodian Temple. If they were carefully measured and drawn, we might
probably be able to assign to each its place in the original building, but as that
has not yet been done, we must wait yet awhile before making the attempt.

As the whole of the superstructure thus, to a great extent, must depend on
conjecture, there only remains the vestibule of the southern entrance, which is
certainly in situ, and sufficiently entire to enable us to judge of the style of
architecture introduced by Herod, and employed by him in rebuilding those
parts of the Temple to which he was allowed access. Even this, however,
has, unfortunately, been considerably damaged by the fire that consumed the
Temple at the time of its destruction by Titus, and it has also been patched and
repaired by Julian, during his unsuccessful attempt to rebuild the Temple.

As it now stands, however, it is a hall measuring about 30 by 40 feet,1 in
the centre of which stands a splendid monolithic column 3 feet 6 inches in

16. — Capital of Pillar in Vestibule of
Southern Entrance.

17. — Capital of Order of the Tower of
the Winds, Athens.

diameter, and 19 feet in height,2 with a Corinthian capital of very beautiful and,
for its situation, very appropriate design. It consists of alternate acanthus and
water leaves, without any volutes or any of the accompaniments of the later
Corinthian order.3 It resembles, in fact, more the order of the Tower of the
Winds at Athens than any other known specimens. It is, of course, more
modern, yet cannot be very far distant in age. From its summit spring four
very flat arches, resting on piers or pilasters at their outer ends, and dividing
the roof into four compartments, a little longer, apparently, north and south than

1 Strange to say, no plan of the vestibule has yet been
published on a sufficient scale and so detailed as to enable
us to speak of its dimensions with certainty.

2 This dimension is taken from De Vogue’s plate.
Tipping, in Trail’s Josephus, makes it 21 feet (p. xxv.),
and others give other dimensions.

3 Unfortunately, no very good representation of this
capital exists ; that given here, by Arundale, is correct

as to character, but not as to the number of leaves. In
this respect it is fully confirmed by De Vogue’s wood-
cut 34, p. 49, Le Temple de J erusalem. Perhaps the best
is that given in Renan’s Mission de Phe'nicie, pi. xli.
It is, however, far from being satisfactory. It is a mere
picturesque sketch ; what is wanting is a drawing by an
architect, and this has not been made, or at least pub-
lished, so far, at least, as I know.

THE TEMPLE OF IIEROD.

Part II.

iii the transverse direction. Each of these, as shown above, in woodcut 13,
is roofed by a low flat dome, which at one time was covered with sculpture of
great beauty, and extremely interesting from its local character. The two inner
domes, however, were so damaged by the fire in Titus’ time 1 that their sculptures
are now undistinguishable ; and it is easy to see how this happened. When the
burning roof of the great Stoa fell in, the heat on the open stairs ( ante , woodcut
13), must have been sufficient to calcine all around it, and to reach the two inner
domes at a distance of 20 to 30 feet. But as the draught was inwards, towards
the Temple, it is probable the two outer would escape ; and this is, exactly, what

18. — One Quadrant op One of the Domes in the Vestibule of the Gate Huldah.
(From a drawing by M. de Saulcy.)

has happened, and forms one of many evidences that the restoration now proposed
cannot be far from the truth.

The ornamentation of one of these outer domes is of a singularly elegant
fluted pattern, and may have been copied almost literally from some classical
example. The other is curiously unconstructive in design, and is just such a
pattern as a local artist would spread over a surface the constructive necessities
of which he had not completely mastered, and could not consequently express it
in its ornamentation. In both, however, the vine is the principal motivo of the

1 Bel. Jud. vi. 5, 2.

Chap. II.

THE COURT OF THE GENTILES.

design, as it is in all Jewish architecture ; here as elsewhere very little con-
ventionalised, but spread among the geometric features in a singularly graceful
manner. If the gates of the inner court were ornamented to the same extent as
this outer one, the effect of the whole must have been such as to justify all
Josephus’ rhetorical flourishes ; and the Temple itself must indeed have been
gorgeous if this outer gate was in the subordination proper to its inferior
position.

In addition to the extreme interest attaching to this vestibule as the only
remaining fragment of Herod’s Temple still existing, and thus giving us an

19. — One Quadrant of Dome of the Vestibule under the Aksa. (From a drawing by M. de Saulcy.)

idea of what its style of decoration may have been, it is also of great value
as elucidating an unexpected incident in the general history of architecture.
Just as at Rome, about the same time, we are startled at finding in the dome
of Agrippa’s Pantheon not only the first, but the greatest and most perfect,
specimen of its class erected either before or since, so here we find the form of a
pendentive dome, apparently complete, but at a much earlier age than anything
hitherto known would lead us to expect. It is not clear, however, even now,
whether it is a true dome in construction. It is composed of so few stones that
it may be constructed, like all Indian domes, horizontally ; but whether this is
so or not, as domical forms had been frequently employed both in Greece and
in Asia for centuries before Herod's time, we ought not to be suiqirised that
attempts should have been made to fit them as roofs to square apartments. If

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part IT.

none so early as this have hitherto been discovered, this is no reason for
denying their existence, and they probably will be found when looked for.1

One of the most regretable omissions in Josephus’ description of the Temple
is that he nowhere mentions the width of the hypsethral part of the Court of the
Gentiles. Had he done so, the plan of the Temple would never have been a
mystery. It is, however, the one important dimension for which we have no
written authority, and which must consequently be obtained by calculation ; and
that always may be disputed, though, I think, in this instance with very little
chance of success. We have above pointed out that the external dimensions of
the Temple, from the Ordnance Survey, are 610 by 585 feet, and we have in
Josephus’ works the width of all the porticos. We thus, with the slight element
of uncertainty as to the thickness of the walls, know exactly what were the
external dimensions of the hypsethral part. Its inner boundary can only be
known when it is ascertained what were the dimensions of the inner Temple
which stood in its midst. This, as I hope presently to show, the measurements
given in the Talmud enable us to do with minute accuracy, as 210 cubits square.
The Rabbis, it is true, afford no assistance in fixing the dimensions of the outer
court. It was not to them sacred ; hardly, indeed, a part of the Temple. They
call it the Mountain of the House, and it was sufficient for their purposes to
quote Ezekiel’s dimensions of 500 cubits square, which, as above pointed out,
was a mistake ; and there they leave it. With the inner Temple, however,
the case was different. There the Rabbis quote every dimension — in so far as
they understood them — in the most minute detail ; and between their inner
and Josephus’ outer court, we are able to ascertain that the dimensions of the
hypsethral part of the Court of the Gentiles was practically 30 cubits or 45 feet
all round ; and this was made up of 24 cubits from the centre of the pillars of the
colonnades to the foot of the steps of the inner Temple, and 6 cubits for twelve
steps of half a cubit each, which lead from the pavement of the Court of the
Gentiles to the Chel or sacred platform of 10 cubits which surrounded the inner
Temple on all sides.2

The variations from these dimensions were slight, but it is important to
point them out, as a knowledge of them adds considerably to the precision of
what follows. On the north they seem to have been exactly as stated, but on the

1 In De Vogue's Syrie Centrale, pi. 6, lie gives two
specimens of a class of building which, he states, are
very common in Syria. They all consist of small square
apartments, surmounted by circular domes resting on an
octagon, not, it is true, as in the Jerusalem instance,
formed like Byzantine pendentives, but, as explained in

the woodcut in p. 44, by successive contractions from
an octagon to the polygon of 16, then of 32 sides, exactly
as is done at the present day, and always has been done
in India quite irrespective of the Byzantine invention.

The date of the building illustrated in the woodcut,
De Vogue gives as 282 a.d., the others as 263, from
some unascertained era. They are, however, very
numerous, and some specimens may be of any age,
and, if constructed in brick and ornamented in stucco,
may have assumed the appearance of these Jerusalem
roofs long before the invention of the true penden-
tives, which play so important a part in Byzantine
architecture.

2 Middoth ii. 3.

Chap. II.

THE COURT OF THE GENTILES.

south they were 2 cubits in excess ; first, because the ground falls now, and
in ancient times must have fallen, to admit of surface drainage, to the extent of
1 cubit ; so that there must have been then fourteen steps instead of twelve ; and,
curiously enough, this exactly accounts for a discrepancy between Josephus 1 and
the Talmud,2 the former stating apparently what he saw on the principal facade,
the latter jotting down what they found in their books without knowing to what
part the quotation applied. This accounts for 1 cubit. The other was introduced
because practically the pillars of the Stoa Basilica were 1 cubit more in diameter
than those of the northern and other porches. This would account for only
9 inches, but as the court was probably set out from the front of the bases,
and not from the centre of the pillars, the pavement in both instances would be
practically 23 cubits from the front of the lowest steps of the stairs to the bases
of the columns.

On the east, the dimension was, I believe, the same, or 23 cubits, but then
there were only three steps, and the Chel, for reasons to be given hereafter, was
only 5 instead 10 cubits ; while on the west we know that the steps were omitted
altogether, first, because, as there was no opening in the wall there,3 they were
useless; and, next, we are distinctly told that John erected his engines against
the west wall of the inner Temple, in consequence of his not being able to
approach the other sides owing to the number of steps in front of them.4
Another reason for the steps beiug omitted on this side was, as before men-
tioned, that the steps from the Prophet’s Gate (Barclay’s) occupied the greater
part of the central space of the court, so that, besides being useless, they would
have impeded the traffic in this direction.

Putting these dimensions together in a tabular form, we have for the southern
Court of the Gentiles : —

Cubits.

Wall and parapet 8

Three aisles according to Josephus 70

Hypgethral part of court 25

Steps 7

Total for southern Court of the Gentiles . ... 110

Chel 10

Chambers (as will he explained hereafter) ... 30

150 cubits.

Northern Court of the Gentiles : — Cubits.

Portico 30

To steps 24

Steps 6

Chel 10

Chambers (as will be explained hereafter) ... 30

100 cubits.

1 B. J. v. 5, 2. 2 Middoth ii. 3. 3 B. J. v 5, 2. 4 B. J. v. 2, 5.

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

Western Court of the Gentiles : —

Portico

Hypasthral court

Chel

Thickness of western and eastern external walls

Internal Dimensions of Eastern Court

Cubits.

. 30

80 cubits.
100 cubits.

If to these dimensions east and west we add the external dimensions of the
inner Temple, 210 cubits, as will be presently explained, we obtain the total
dimensions of the Temple east and west, thus: —

Cubits.

Western court, with external east and west walls 80

Internal court over all 210

Eastern court 100

390 cubits, or 535 feet.

North and south, in the same manner, we obtain : —

Cubits.

Northern court, with Chel and chambers . . . 100

Internal couit, from wall to wall 150

Southern court, with Chel and chambers (as will
be explained hereafter) 150

400 cubits, or 600 feet ;

Add for thickness of northern wall .... 6 (?) „ „ 10 „

406 cubits, or 610 feet;

both these being the exact dimensions we obtain from the Ordnance Survey.

It may also be remarked that the distance, as shown in the above table, from
the inner face of the inner court to the southern face of the Temple, is exactly 150
cubits, or just equal to the width of the inner court itself, as we hope presently
to be able to prove. The two together make up the three hundred cubits of
Ezekiel’s Temple, which there seems little doubt it was intended they should
repeat, though differently divided. All this shows such regularity of design,
and works out so satisfactorily, that it seems impossible these coincidences can
be accidental. They must be component parts of a well considered design
carefully worked out.

Chap. III.

THE INNER TEMPLE.

CHAPTER III.

THE INNER TEMPLE.

Plan, Plate II.

As might be expected, we are almost as dependent on the Talmud for the
dimensions and arrangements of the inner Temple as we are on Josephus for those
of the outer courts. AVhether it really was that, in spite of his boasted priestly
descent, Josephus was less familiar with the inner sacred precincts than he pretends
to be, or from whatever cause, his description of them is marked by blunders
and exaggerations that are quite intolerable. The Talmudists, on the contrary,
are generally to be depended upon in so far as dimensions are concerned. The
figures they quote are taken from earlier works of persons who had sufficient local
knowledge to enable them to state them correctly ; but the compilers of the
Talmud had themselves no such knowledge, nor had they any plan, nor skill suffi-
cient to make one, or to see how the whole fitted together, and they consequently
sometimes blundered to such an extent that it requires considerable care and study
to rectify their errors. Still, when all that is said by Josephus and the Rabbis is
compared with what is found in the Bible, and checked by the Ordnance Survey,
I believe the plan, at least, of the inner Temple may be laid down, if not with
absolute certainty, at least with quite sufficient accuracy for all our present
purposes. The disposition and names of some of the rooms attached to the
Temple must, for the present at least, remain somewhat doubtful ; but these are
not important, and may fairly be left to future investigation.

If the dimensions of the inner court, so frequently and so loudly proclaimed
in the Talmud, could be depended upon, the task of the restorer would be con-
siderably simplified. It is over and over again stated to have been a parallelogram
187 cubits east and west by 135 cubits north and south, both which measurements
are palpably wrong, the first to the extent of 13 cubits, the other by 15 to 16
cubits. The first is obtained by the Rabbis from the following addition : —

Cubits.

From the inside of the wall to the back of the Holy House — the

“ separate place ” of Ezekiel 11

The house itself 100

From the porch to the altar 22

The altar 32

The Court of the Priests 11

The Court of the Men of Israel 11

187 cubits.1

Middoth v. 1.

96 THE TEMPLE OF HEROD. Paht II.

It is evident, however, that the Rabhis omit to take into account the space
between the front of the house and the toran, or screen, which in Herod’s Temple
took the place of Jachin and Boaz in that of Solomon, as will he explained here-
after, and is here called “the porch,” hut is quite distinct from the Ailam, or
porch, of the house itself. This I estimate at 5 cubits. The Altar was, east and
west, 33 instead of 32 cubits. They omit the width of the steps that separated
the Court of the Priests from that of the Men of Israel, probably It or 2 cubits,
and, lastly, they omit the depth of the gate Eleanor. In other words, the width
of the Court of Israel— already too narrow — must have been measured from the
front of that gateway ; and if it projected 5 cubits into the court — which is
the least assignable measure — these omissions amount together to 13 cubits, and
make the whole inner length of the court 200 cubits, instead of 187 cubits.

If the Talmudists had been aware that the courts of Solomon’s Temple
were exactly double those of the Tabernacle, and that consequently 200 cubits
was a sacred number, they would no doubt have found means of making their
measurements of this court agree with those of the Bible. The fact of the
one being double 1 the other is, however, nowhere mentioned in the Bible, nor
this number quoted in so many words. It seems, however, strange that they
should have studied Ezekiel with so little care as not to perceive that he
makes the court, in which the Temple and the Altar stand, 200 cubits east and
west. Had they done so, instead of misreading 500 reeds for 500 cubits, the
confusion they have introduced into the measurements of the Temple would
never have existed. They have thus, however, prevented the true state of
the case from being perceived up to this time, and it is therefore a
fortunate circumstance that the materials exist for correcting so serious a
mistake. From what has been said above about the dimensions of Solomon’s
Temple, it does not seem to admit of a doubt that in it 200 cubits was the
length of the court which contained the Temple and Altar, and if this were
so, it seems simply impossible that any other dimensions could have been
introduced in the rebuilding in Herod's time.

The section north and south is not so easily disposed of, as the Rabbis give
us no addition that makes up the sum of 135 cubits at which they state it.
What they do state is the following, beginning from the north : —

Cubits.

From the walls to the pillars (of the court) 8

From the pillars to the tables 4

From the tables to the rings 4

Place of the rings 24

From the rings to the altar 8

From north side of altar to the foot of sloping ascent on south side G2

110 cubits.

1 I do not want to take credit for what may not be my due, but so far as I know I am the first to insist on the
duplication of the Tabernacle in the Temple, as one of the principal means of ascertaining the dimensions of the latter.

Chap. III.

THE INNER TEMPLE.

Tlie remainder, they merely add, lay between the foot of the slope and the
place of the pillars, but what that amount was, they do not state, and we are
left to supply it as best we may. It may either be 17, or 25, or 33, or, in fact,
any number we please. Before, however, trying to explain this, it is necessary
to point out that even then the Rabbis omit the width of the “ tables.” They
measure to and from them, but do not state what their breadth was. In
Ezekiel’s Temple, the dimension was li cubit,1 and it may have been the same
in Herod’s, or, more probably, 2 cubits in the larger Temple.

When we add the Talmudic measures together with the corrections, we find
the distance from the north wall to the centre of the altar is 66^ cubits, made up

of the following items : —

Cubits.

From the wall to the pillars 8

From the pillars to the tables 4

Tables according to Ezekiel

From the tables to the rings 4

Place of the rings . 24

From rings to altar 8

Half-altar 17

66^ cubits ;

the one element of uncertainty here being whether the measurement of the
Altar ought to be taken as 16 or 17 cubits to its centre; in other words,
whether the cubit “the children of the Captivity”2 added was taken into
account in the above specification, or whether the Rabbis adhered to the
sacred number of 32 cubits for the Altar. On the whole, I am inclined to
think they did so, and also, as no half-cubits are found in the Middoth, that
the width of the tables was increased from 1^ cubit to 2 cubits, making
the whole distance from the wall to the centre of the Altar 66 cubits. To
this we shall have occasion to refer hereafter, when I think it will be
found expedient to drop the half-cubit, which, after all, is not mentioned in
the Talmud, but only adopted from Ezekiel. Sometimes I am inclined to
fancy that, having thus got to what they believed to be the centre of the
court, they doubled the figure above obtained for the whole width. It is
true this only makes 132 or 133 cubits, instead of 135, but we are not sure
of the component parts of their sum, which are not stated in the Middoth.

The unfortunate part of the business is that the Rabbis afford us no
means of checking this sum, or of ascertaining how it was arrived at. As
just explained, we can see how the 187 cubits of this court, east and west,
was made up, but they give us no figures which, added together, make up
135 cubits. The duplication theory, just hinted at, can hardly be maintained;

Ezekiel xl. 42.

2 Middoth iii. 1.

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

and, besides, it only gives 132 or 133 cubits, instead of 135; and the only
suggestion that occurs to me is that the 135 cuhits was the width of the
hypmthral part of the great court, and that to this must be added 16 cubits,
for the width of the two colonnades on the north and south, making altogether
151. This, on the other hand, is 1 cubit in excess, and results in an uneven
number, which I hold to be quite inadmissible in Jewish architecture. I
have therefore assumed that the width of the open court was 134 cubits,
and with the porticos 150 cubits from wall to wall. I am, of course, aware
that this is a mere assumption, for which there is no direct authority ; but
as it is the one measurement in the whole Temple plan that cannot be proved,
any one is at liberty to reject this one cubit if he thinks it expedient to do
so. All I can object is that the uneven number in which it results is most
improbable, and that, if it is retained, the outside dimensions of the inner
Temple will be 210 cubits east and west, and 211 cubits north and south,
which, to say the least of it, is equally unlikely. If, however, it is determined
that it must be retained, this cubit must be taken out of the southern Court
of the Gentiles, where, as above explained, there are 2 cubits in excess of
the other courts ; and one of them may have been overlooked in the design,
though found necessary in the execution. This is the most that can result
from its retention ; but as it is the only important measurement in the
whole Temple plan regarding which I feel any doubt or hesitation, I must
leave it to others to decide whether it should be retained or rejected.

Besides the testimony of the Talmud, Josephus describes these “ single
cloisters ” (of the inner court) “ as no way inferior, except in magnitude, to
those of the lower court.” 1 Nor must we forget that the inner court of
Solomon’s Temple was surrounded by three rows of hewn stone, with a row
of cedar beams, which, as explained above (page 39), I fancy meant a double
colonnade. Be this as it may, these 16 cubits being added to the Rabbinical
measure of 134 or 135 cubits, instead of being included in it, is just what
was wanted to render the plan of this court reasonable and intelligible.
Without them, in addition to the absurdity of having a Court of the Women
of Israel 135 cubits in length by 135 cubits in width, we had only a Court
of the Men of Israel 135 cubits in length by 11 cubits in width, or less in
size than one-twelfth of that of the women. We had the further difficulty that
the Court of the Men could only be entered from the east through the Court
of the Women, for the Court of the Priests, of the same dimensions, extended
from wall to wall, and, according to the Rabbis, cut off the men tof Israel from
all the southern entrances. Such an arrangement is utterly untenable, for no
one can study the plan of the Temple even superficially without perceiving that
practically the principal facade and the principal entrances faced the south.

1 B. J. V. 5, 2.

Chap. III.

THE INNER TEMPLE.

Not only was the Stoa Basilica there, but all the three entrances, which we know
were in use, open into the southern Court of the Grentiles, and from it, as we shall
see presently, three double gateways led to the inner court ; and to say that
these could not be used by the men of Israel is too manifestly absurd to be for
one moment admitted. By the arrangement now proposed, we have a southern
Court of the Men of Israel 200 cubits long by 34 or 35 cubits wide ; and
we understand at once the whole design, which was singularly appropriate
and well arranged. The accommodation thus provided for the men of Israel
is, as nearly as may be, double that provided for the women, instead of being
only one twelfth ; and it is exactly where it is wanted, and arranged just as
any one now designing the Temple would like to place it.

If, therefore, we may assume, for the reasons above given, that the
dimensions of the open part of this court were 134 cubits, not 135 cubits,
as the Rabbis state them, and the whole width, with the colonnades, 150 cubits,
the section through the fa£ade of the holy house becomes easy, thus : —

Cubits.

Width of cloister 8

Entrance to separate place 8

Half-width of faQade of Temple 50

Half-width again 50

Sonth Court of Men of Israel 34

150 cubits.

If the internal dimensions of this court were consequently 200 by 150
cubits, we have only to add, to the first figure, the thickness of its western
and eastern walls, which I have assumed to be 6 and 4 cubits respectively,
and we have a total dimension of 210 cubits over all. In like manner, we
have only to add the width of the two ranges of chambers on the north and
south sides of the court, which, we learn from Josephus, were each 30 cubits,1
and we arrive at the same dimension ; in other words, that the inner Temple
was an exact square of 210 cubits, which is an extremely satisfactory result,
inasmuch as we learn from Josephus that it was an exact square,2 though,
unfortunately, neither he nor the Talmud tells us what its real dimensions
were. Besides this, nothing can be more in conformity with the whole spirit
of Jewish architecture than that they should make their inner Temple — the
only part they considered sacred — a perfectly regular figure. They attempted
the same with the whole “ mountain of the house,” but failed, owing to local
difficulties; but this they evidently considered as of comparatively little import-

1 B. J. v. 5, 3.

2 B. J. v. 5, 2.

ioo

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Paet II.

ance, and the difference between 406 and 390 was not so great as to be
detected without measurement, and consequently sufficed for the semi-sacred
parts of the Temple.

Immediately outside this square inner court was a flat terrace or berm, called
the Chel, 1 0 cubits wide, which was part of the sacred precincts, into which only
the Israelites were allowed to enter. On its outer edge was a marble screen
of elegant design, 3 cubits in height, in which at intervals were inserted pillars
bearing inscriptions in Greek and Roman characters, declaring that it was
forbidden to any foreigner to enter the sanctuary.1 The Talmud represents
this screen, which they call Soreg, as of wood, richly carved,2 but this is
evidently a mistake, as M. Ganneau found one of these pillars built into the wall
of a house near the Haram area.3 It was of marble, and bore the identical
inscription in Greek letters that is mentioned by Josephus.

In almost all the restorations of the Temple published hitherto, this barrier,
or Soreg, is placed halfway between the pillars of the outer porticos and the foot
of the steps leading to the Chel. There, however, it would be singularly
unmeaning and devoid of any dignity of form, but placed where I have put it, at
the head of the steep flight of steps, it gains dignity from its position, and its
meaning is sufficiently plain. It was placed there to protect the Chel from
profanation by the impure, but no part of the Court of the Gentiles nor of the
steps was included in the inner Temple, and they therefore required no such
protection. Besides this, if we read carefully the description of Josephus, we see
that he describes, first, the hypiethral part of the Court of the Gentiles, or outer
court, as paved with stones of various sorts and colours. He then proceeds to
describe the inner or second Temple as surrounded by this barrier, and then adds,
“ This second or inner Temple is called 4 the sanctuary,’ and is ascended to by
fourteen steps.”4 From this it is quite evident that the steps led up from the
Court of the Gentiles, which was accessible to foreigners, to the inner or sacred
parts, to which Israelites only were admitted ; and the barrier inside the steps
was the obvious division between what was common to all and wdiat was sacred,
including the Chel, and appropriated to the men of Israel only.

It seems quite certain that the Chel with its Soreg extended round three
sides of the inner Temple, on the south, north, and west sides, though it may have
been omitted on the last, where there were no steps ; but it seems doubtful whether
it extended to the east, so as to encompass also the Court of the Women. If you
ask the Talmudists, they answer unhesitatingly that it did.5 There can be no
doubt that the Court of the Women was chel , or sacred, if the word may be used as
an adjective. The events narrated in the Acts of the Apostles,6 which certainly
took place in the Court of the Women, are alone sufficient to prove this; but the

1 Bel. Jud. v. 5, 2. 2 Lightfoot, p. 306. 3 Quarterly Reports, P. E. F., new series, No. 2, p. 132, 1871.

4 B. J. v. 5, 2. 5 Lightfoot, pp. 300 et seqq. 6 Acts xxi. 28.

Chap. III.

THE INNER TEMPLE.

101

question is, Was not tlie Court of the Women practically the Chel of the inner
Temple ? That, it must he remembered, was the square court above described
as 210 cubits square, and though certain portions around it were chel, they were
less sacred than the sanctuary itself. It was, for instance, lawful to sit in the
Chel and in the Court of the Women. It was not lawful to do so in the court of
the Temple, unless it were the king ; 1 while it is almost certain that it was in this
court that Christ sat and taught, as narrated in Mark xii. 41. Besides this, we are
told that Herod was not permitted to enter into the Temple itself, nor into the
Court of the Priests, nor of that of the Men of Israel.2 These three places are
distinctly specified as forbidden, but as the Court of the Women is not mentioned,
the inference is that he might have entered that without committing sacrilege.

The question, however, is not so much the degree of relative sanctity of the
Temple and the Court of the Women as the manner in which the latter was defined
and maintained. If we consult the Talmud, we find the Rabbis maintaining
without hesitation that the Chel with its barrier surrounded the whole, and
included the Court of the Women in the same manner as it did the more sacred
parts of the Temple ; and it is easy to understand that, having put the whole of
the 100 cubits they had to spare, from their mislection of Ezekiel, into the Court
of the Women, and made it 135 cubits square, it never could have occurred to
them that a court of these dimensions could be a Chel to one only 210 cubits
square. The case, however, is different when we have ascertained that the Court
of the Women was only 35 cubits wide. The difference between that and the
Chel of 10 cubits that surrounded the three other sides is not so great that
they might not be considered as subserving the same purposes. The Temple
properly so called was contained in the square, described above as a square of
210 cubits. What was beyond that was, in Solomon’s time, the New Court; in
Ezekiel’s time the Outer Court; and, though it is nowhere expressly so stated,
these may even in those days have been accessible to foreigners. When in
Herod’s time the eastern court was divided into two, and the inner half given
up to the women of Israel and the outer half avowedly to the Gentiles, it may
very well have been that the women’s court was considered as a partition taken
from the outer and less sacred parts of the Temple to mark and enforce a
distinction which had become indispensable between Jews and Gentiles, at a
time when the latter had acquired certain privileges which were nevertheless
fiercely resented by the stricter sects of the Jewish nation.

There are other reasons, some of which will appear in the sequel, why the
Court of the Women should be considered as the Chel on the east side of the
Temple ; but in case anyone should object to this view, I have drawn it with a Chel
of its own, but one only 5 cubits in width. In the first place, as symbolical of its

Lightfoot, p. 338.

2 Josephus, Ant. xv. 11, 5.

102

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

less complete sanctity, and, in the second, because the steps leading to it were only
three in number, instead of twelve or fourteen, such a diminution would be
architecturally appropriate. If, however, it is thought that it is still necessary
to provide it with a Chel of 10 cubits width, it can easily be done, but only
at the expense of the Court of the Gentiles. This, however, I consider, to say
the least of it, as extremely improbable, inasmuch as the pavement of the
hypsethral part of the Court of the Gentiles seems certainly to have been set
out with a width of 24 cubits on the three other sides, and it seems very
unlikely they would have varied it unnecessarily on the east, while it could
easily have been set out with the same width all round.

The mode in which we ascertain the number of steps leading from the Court
of the Gentiles to that of the Women is this. As explained above, there were on
the north side twelve steps leading to the Chel, and beyond that there were five
more leading to the Court of Israel of the inner Temple,1 or seventeen on the
north and nineteen on the south, but consequently in the middle eighteen. Now
from the Talmud we know that fifteen steps led from the Court of the Women to
that of Israel, so that only three more were required to ascend from the Court
of the Gentiles to that of the Women, and these in plan would occupy only
1 cubit or at most 2 cubits. The section, therefore, of the court may be
expressed in the following figures : —

Cubits.

Court of the Women — corrected Middoth 35

Eastern wall 4

Chel with its harrier (?) 5

Steps, cubit or 2 cubits 2

Court of Gentiles, as on all sides 24

Solomon’s Porch, as rebuilt by Herod 30

100 cubits ;

or the exact inner dimensions of the new or outer Court of Solomon’s Temple
which was subdivided in this manner when the Temple was rebuilt by Herod.
To this we must add 6 cubits, say, 10 feet, for the assumed thickness of the
outer wall to make up the dimensions obtained from the Ordnance Survey.

It is now only necessary to explain how the western Court of the Gentiles
was subdivided, and this fortunately is the easiest of the whole, as the simplest in
its arrangements. The external wall, being an upper one, and, like that on the
south, not liable to be attacked, was, it seems, only 4 cubits in thickness ; the
portico, as on the north and east sides, according to Josephus, 30 cubits. This
also was the width, as before exjilained, of the open part of the Court of the

1 Bel. Jud. y. 5, 2.

Chap. III.

THE INNER TEMPLE.

103

Gentiles all round, including the steps, which, however, did not exist on this
side ; and if to these figures we add the Chel, 10 cubits, we have : —

Cubits.

Wall 4

Covered part, or porch 30

Open or hypastliral part, including position of steps . . 30

Chel 10

74 cubits ;

all which is so appropriate, and so consonant with what we find in other parts,
that it does not appear to me to admit of any doubt.

Our grand section east and west will therefore, as before stated, stand thus : —

Cubits.

Western Court of Gentiles 74

Inner Temple over all 210

Eastern court, including Court of Women ..... 100

Outer eastern wall 6

390 cubits, or 585 feet,

as measured by the Ordnance Survey.

The elements of uncertainty in this are very few, and confined wholly to
matters of detail, which in themselves are really of very slight importance. Thus
the position of the Altar being given — and this, as before explained, I consider
fixed absolutely by the centre line of the ITuldah Gate— and the dimensions of the
inner Temple, being ascertained (210 cubits), those of the western Court of the
Gentiles are also determined as 74 cubits beyond all cavil. In like manner, the
distance of 100 cubits between the outer face of the inner Temple and the back
of Solomon's Porch, I look upon as absolutely fixed, not only by the Bible, but also
by calculation, and it consequently is only how the last figure should be subdivided
that is at all open to question. For myself, I fancy that the 5 cubits allowed for
a Chel here could be as well or better employed in providing galleries and porches
inside the Court of the Women, but it seems of singularly little importance how
this is decided. The general dimensions of these three great divisions east and
west may be considered as ascertained within inches, and so, too, is their exact
position on the Ordnance Survey.

The section north and south is equally satisfactory. First we have : —

Cubits.

Northern Court of the Gentiles as before 70

The Temple properly so called 210

Southern Court of the Gentiles 120

400

To which we must add the thickness of the north wall,
for which there is no authority, say 6

406 cubits = 609 or 610 feet.

104

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

Here the one element of uncertainty is whether the inner Temple is to be
considered as measuring 210 or 211 cubits north and south. For reasons above
given, I myself have no doubt that it was 210, and the centre line to have been
66 cubits from the northern wall, so that this section appears to be ascertained
with the same precision and certainty as that in the transverse direction.

We are now in a position to understand the scheme on which the rebuilding
of the Temple by Herod was undertaken, and the motives that governed the
selection of the dimensions given to each part. They originated, partly, in a love
of even numbers, for which the Jewish architects always showed so strong
a predilection, but more in the necessity for adhering to dimensions they
considered sacred, as having been divinely revealed to their ancestors under
circumstances of the deepest solemnity.

The largest or outer dimension of 400 cubits was not sacred, and nowhere
occurs in the Bible. It therefore was of the least possible consequence whether
it was a few cubits longer or shorter in any direction ; the architects were
consequently free to adopt any number they found most convenient for the
harmonious arrangement of the internal parts.

As the internal dimensions of the holy house itself were divinely ordained^
there was very little room for extension in those parts ; but the fa£ade did not
exist in the Tabernacle, and had already been extended in Solomon’s Temple ;
so the Jews in Herod’s time were allowed to indulge in their love of numerical
symmetry, by extending the three “ sixties ” of Solomon’s Temple into three
“hundreds” in Herod’s, and to make the building, which was 100 cubits long
in the body, 100 cubits high and 100 cubits broad in the fafjade, so as to
make it practically a cube or at least a building of three equal dimensions, like
the Holy of Holies, which was their beau-icleal of symmetrical proportions.

A building, however, that was 100 cubits in width could not stand in a
court of 100 cubits, and allow of the necessary passages round it ; so the architects
boldly added 50 cubits to its width north and south, while retaining the sacred
dimension of 200 cubits east and west. Several advantages were gained by this
adjustment, which enabled them to indulge in their love of symmetry, without
interfering with their sacred traditions. Thus, although it was of the least
possible consequence whether the outer court should be exactly 400 cubits each
way, it was essential, according to their ideas, that the inner court of the Temple
should be perfectly symmetrical, and it thus became — as above pointed out — an
exact square measuring 210 cubits externally ; and internally it was no doubt
200 cubits each way, though, as we do not know the exact thickness of the north
and south walls, it is hardly possible to prove this. If, however, we assume the
north and south walls of the chambers to have been 5 cubits, 7h feet, which is
an extremely probable number, the result would be that the inner court of the
Temple was an exact square measuring 200 cubits each way internally. Not

Chap. III.

THE INNER TEMPLE.

105

only dicl the inner Temple thus become perfectly symmetrical, but this result was
obtained by repeating in Herod’s Temple the exact arithmetical operation that
Solomon bad performed on the Tabernacle. The court in which the Tabernacle
stood was 50 cubits by 100 ; Solomon made it 100 cubits by 200 ; and in Herod’s
time it was increased to a square of 200 cubits, retaining its dimensions east
and west, but doubling them in right angles.

Another very important advantage was obtained by this adjustment. As
before pointed out (page 94), the inner Temple, with its southern and eastern courts,
as rebuilt by Herod, measured 300 cubits north and south, as well as east and
west, thus reproducing exactly the dimensions of the Temple described by
Ezekiel. The western and northern outer courts were hardly considered, at any
time, sacred by the Jews. There was absolutely no connexion between the
western and the inner court, and no opening in the western wall of the Temple
properly so called ; nor was there any public entrance from the northern to the
inner court of the Temple. The priests and servants of the Temple had access
from the north. The public had not, and in fact, except for the purposes of a
passage, had no business on that side at all. The inner Temple, with its southern
and eastern courts, was in fact the Temple properly so called. The western and
northern courts, like the Gamma of the Altar,1 were an excrescence necessary
for convenience, but neither for sanctity nor symmetry.

In Solomon’s time the western court could have had no existence, as it stands
, on new ground made by Herod, and the northern court in his day was a ditch
which was filled up by Pompey, and only taken into the precincts when the
enlargement on the north 3 was determined upon. It thus happened that neither
their site nor their dimensions had at any time much sanctity attached to them,
but the case was widely different with the remaining 300 cubits, which, had the
Rabbis been capable of understanding Ezekiel, they would have adopted, as
Herod’s architect did, from his writing, instead of the 500 cubits, with reference
to which they blundered so egregiously.

All this is so exactly in conformity with all we know of the history of the
Temple, and of the feelings which dictated and governed its design, that now
that these dimensions are confirmed to within inches by the Ordnance Survey, I
do not see that the dimensions of the Temple in plan can any longer be open to
doubt. I, at least, know of no building in the whole world, which has been so
completely ruined, regarding the plan and dimensions of which we can feel the
same confident certainty as we can regarding this celebrated Temple, and unless
I am strangely mistaken, this part of the question may be considered — in all its
essential parts — settled at once and for ever.

1 Middoth iii. 1.

B. J. v. 5, 1.

106

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

CHAPTER IV.

GATES AND CHAMBERS.

When from these dimensions and details, which work out so satisfactorily and
with such minute accuracy in plan, we turn to the arrangement and the names of
the various gates and chambers that surrounded the inner court of the Temple,
we find a totally different state of matters. The position and the form of the
Water Cate may be fixed with perfect accuracy, but, beyond that, the evidence is
so confused and contradictory that only approximate certainty can be attained
in any case ; but, fortunately, no important issues depend on their arrangement.
Their general form and use are easily understood, and whether one was east or
west of another, or whether it bore one or two names, is only of interest to
students of the Talmud. The Bible hardly alludes to them, and history would
not be made much clearer if we knew all that could be known about them.

If written materials existed for explaining their positions and uses, it
certainly would have been done long ago by Lightfoot.1 His intimate familiarity
with the writings of the Rabbis and his critical sagacity would certainly have
enabled him to clear up the mystery, but nothing can be more unsatisfactory
than the twelve chapters he devotes to this purpose (xxi.-xxxii.). There are
some points, of course, which he establishes with tolerable certainty, but the whole
is a mass of confusion that is most disheartening. It is quite evident, from what
he says, that the Rabbis had no real knowledge of the locality, and no treatise
had been written by any one personally acquainted with it. They gathered
together from various treatises, written by different hands, such allusions as they
found bearing on the matter in hand, and noted them down without having the
skill sufficient to construct a plan from them, or to see how the one piece of
knowledge elucidated or contradicted another. In this instance, local knowledge
was not required, and the want of it would not have prevented Lightfoot from
settling the question, had the necessary materials been available ; but, without
going farther than the little treatise of the Middoth in the Appendix, it is easy
to see how and why he broke down in the task.

1 The Temple Service and the Prospect of the Temple,
by the Rev. John Lightfoot, D.D., Master of Catharine
Hall, Cambridge, published with other works in two
volumes folio; afterwards by the Rev. John Pitman, in
the ninth volume of his collected works in 1823, but,

strange to say, without correcting any of the errors or
inadvertences of the original work. It is this octavo
edition of 1823 from which all the references here given
are taken.

Chap. IV.

GATES AND CHAMBERS.

107

In tlie first chapter we have the following statement : — “ In the court (the
inner) there were seven gates : three in the north and three in the south and one
in the east. That in the south was called the Gate of Flaming, the second after it
the Gate of Offering, the third after it the Water Gate. That in the east was called
the gate Nicanor ” (sect. 5). “ At the gate Nitzus, in the north, was a kind of cloister
with a room built over it, where the priests kept ward above and the Levites
below. Second to it was the Gate of Offering ; third was the house of Moked or
Mokadk.” If the description stopped there, all would be clear. The position ot
the Water Gate we know absolutely ; it was opposite the Altar, and in continuation
of the gate Huldah, and if we may assume — which I think we are justified in
doing — that on the north, as well as on the south, the enumeration begins from
the west, all is clear. The two Gates of Offering were opposite to one another in
the centre, and the gate Mokadh was opposite the Water Gate, and this I believe
to be the true state of the case. But a little farther on (chap. ii. sect. 6) we have
the following statement : — “ In the south, near the west, were the Upper Gate, the
Gate of Flaming, the Gate of the First-born, the Water Gate.” Here a fourth gate
is ^interpolated, which, we may say, certainly did not exist, and, except for the
Water Gate, new names are applied. The Rabbis then go on to say : — “ Opposite
to them in the north, near to the west, the gate of Jochania, the Gate of Offering,
the Gate of the Women, and the Gate of Music.” Here also we have four gates,
and, except the Gate of Offering, with new names, so that their identification
becomes difficult, though not so much so as Lightfoot would lead us to suppose.
In his 32nd chapter, he places the gate Nitzus as the most eastern, neglecting the
distinct assertion, just quoted from the Middoth, that it was the most western,
and identifying it with the Gate of Music, for which he confesses he has no
authority,1 but in doing this, he disarranges the whole matter, and introduces
a confusion that runs through his entire work.

In this dilemma it is fortunate that Josephus comes forward to help us with
a distinct statement. Beyond the Chel, he says, “ There were five other steps
which led to the gates, which gates were eight, on the north and south sides, or
four on each, and of necessity two on the east, for since there was a partition
built for the women on that side, as a proper place for them to worship, there
was of necessity a second gate for them.” 2 “ This gate was cut out of the
wall over against the first gate. But on the other sides, there was one
northern and one southern gate, through which there was a passage to the Court
of the "Women, for, as to the other gates, the women were not allowed to pass
through them, nor, when they went through their own, could they pass beyond
their own wall.' 3 Even this passage, however, would not be quite free from

1 Lightfoot, p. 378.

2 The mode in which Josephus speaks of this' Gupn,
or partition cut off from something else, is alone suffi-

cient to prove that it rvas not a court nearly as large

as the Temple court itself, as the Rabbis would wish us
to believe. B. J. v. 5, 2.

3 B. J. v. 5, 2.

108

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

ambiguity, were it not that, in the next section (3), he mentions twice over that
nine of these gates were covered with gold and silver, and one with Corinthian
brass — the Beautiful Gate of the Bible, the Nicauor of the Talmud. From this
and from the necessities of the plan, there seems no doubt that there were ten
gates, and ten gates only, to the inner Temple with the Court of the Women. The
Rabbinical specification of thirteen 1 I believe to be accounted for by the fact
that the three southern gates were double, while all the others were single, as
will be explained presently.

Of these ten gates, the only one of the position and dimensions of which we
can feel quite sure from local indications is the Water Gate. As Lightfoot says,
“ It opened directly on the altar.” 3 It was in fact a continuation of the gate
Huldah, and derived its name from being attached on the west side to the “draw-
well room,” whence the principal supply of water for the use of the Temple was
then obtained, as it is now. It stands, in fact, over the “ Well of the Leaf,”
which was supplied with water from Solomon’s Pool, certainly in Herod’s, if not in
Solomon’s time. The conduit that brought the water into it was cut through by
the builders of the Aksa3 (694 a.d.), when they found it necessary to extend the
passage from the gate Huldah, so as to rise to the surface in front of the mosque,
considerably farther north than was originally necessary. It was probably owing
to the fact of its being supplied from Etam that it was considered the principal
source, from which water was obtained, for the service of the Altar and courts ;
otherwise we should suppose that the “ great sea,” so called, was more important ;
but that seems to receive rain water only, or to be supplied from some
underground springs, which may have been less constant and less to be depended
upon. Be that as it may, the principal opening through which water is now
drawn from the “Well of the Leaf ” occurs under the colonnade of the inner
Temple, just where we would expect to find it placed for the service of the
Temple. If, however, it is thought necessary to take the expression of the Talmud
literally, it was in the “ room ” adjoining the gateway. This, however, need
cause no difficulty, as a second opening, though now disused, still exists, and
is marked on the Ordnance Survey, in that room, as protracted from the
indications in Josephus and the Talmud ; in the centre towards the east.

With their usual correctness in detail, the Rabbis make these gates all 10
cubits or 15 feet wide, by 20 cubits or 30 feet in height, which is, as nearly as may
be, the dimensions we derive from those of the passage from the gate Huldah,
that is, 40 feet in width ; while by protraction of the south facade of the Temple
we obtain 39 feet between the towers, and, making the necessary allowance for
the central dividing pier and the door-posts, 15 leet, is, as nearly as may be,
the dimensions we arrive at. But here, for the first time, we detect a mode of
exaggeration Josephus is too fond of indulging in. Instead of 15 by 30 feet,

1 Middoth ii. 6.

2 Chap. xxiv. p. 350.

Wilson’s Notes, p. 39 ; see also Ordnance Survey map.

Chap. IY.

GATES AND CHAMBERS.

109

lie says the doors were 15 cubits wide by 30 cubits high,1 which are dimensions we
cannot possibly work to, especially if the gates were double. It appears to me
hardly doubtful that Josephus was wrong in this statement. In the first place, it
would he a curious instance of architectural bathos if a double gateway like that
of Huldah, with two passages of 1 2 cubits each, were to lead to a single entrance
only 10 cubits wide. Besides this, we must never lose sight of the fact that,
though Solomon’s Temple faced the east, because his palace was on that side,
and access to the Temple was easily obtained by the inclined plane between the
Horse Gate and the Upper Gate, its orientation was entirely changed by Herod’s
additions. In his time the Temple faced the south ; not only did the great Stoa
Basilica occupy that side, but all the three great entrances we know of, centred
in the southern Court of the Gentiles : that from Ophel, by the gate Huldah ;
that from the city, across the causeway; and that from the suburbs, by the
Parbar Gate. It, consequently, was necessary to provide access to the Temple
from that court, equal, or at least nearly equal, in width to those that gave access
to the lower court. The former were — one of 12 cubits from the Parbar, two of
12 cubits from the Huldah, and one of 30 cubits from the central aisle of the
Stoa Basilica, or 66 cubits in all. Six gates of 10 cubits to the Temple and
one of like dimensions to the Court of the Women would suffice for this; but
less would be a defect in the design hardly to be expected in so beautiful and
regular a building.

If this is so — or, indeed, whether it is or not — we have little difficulty in
setting out the southern facade, which was the principal one of Herod’s Temple.
The position of the eastern or Water Gate being fixed absolutely, that of the
western or Gate Hadlak or of Flaming must, of course, correspond with it ; and
the only question is, should it correspond with the internal or with the external
divisions of the court ? — for as the wall on the west was, in all probability, 2 cubits
thicker than that on the east, the western block must be 2 cubits wider than the
eastern. For reasons which will appear hereafter, I have preferred the internal
to the external symmetry of the facade ; but it is so small a matter — no human
eye could detect it — that it is hardly worth arguing about. But if any one
thinks this a defect, he can easily distribute the two cubits among the inter-
mediate parts. According to the arrangement adopted in the plan, this front
consisted of —

Cubits.

Two central towers of 28 cubits each 56

Three intermediate gateway spaces of 26 cubits each . 78

One angle tower of 37

Another angle tower 39

1 B. J. y. 5, 3.

210 cubits.

110

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Pakt II.

The Talmud does not give us the height ot these buildings, but Josephus
does in a manner to lead us to suspect another exaggeration, by changing feet
into cubits. Externally, he says, they were 40 cubits in height, but internally
only 25, because of the steps that led up from the Court of the Gentiles to that
of the Temple. Now we know, as above stated, that these steps were 14 + 5 or
1 9 in number, and as each was half a cubit in height, this gives 9 h cubits, or
14 feet 3 inches, which is suspiciously like the 15 cubits Josephus assigns
to this difference.

Eastward from the chamber of the draw-well stood the chamber Gazith or
the chamber of hewn stone, in which the Sanhedrin sat from the time of the
Captivity till forty years before the destruction of the Temple, or till a.d. 30.1
Before the Captivity they sat apparently first in the outer and then in the inner
of the two eastern gates of the Temple ; but, as we have shown above, in describing
Ezekiel’s Temple, the gates were of a very different form and construction in the
old Temples to what they were in either the second or third, and when this
alteration was made, it was indispensable that a new chamber should be
provided for the accommodation of the seventy-one members composing this
great council.

The position and arrangements of this room have proved rather a stumbling-
block to those who have hitherto attempted to restore the Temple, inasmuch as
the Rabbis have added to it the specification that one-half of it must be within
the Chel and one-half without ; the reason given for this being that “ it was not
lawful for any man to sit in the (inner) court unless it be one of the kings of
the house of David.” 2 It was consequently necessary to provide that one-half of
the room in which the great council sat should be outside the Chel, and have an
entrance from the outer court, as well as from the inner.3 All this is easily
provided for, as shown in the plan ; but how are we to understand the
specification, “ One-half inside the Chel and one-half outside ” ?

If the Chel were a barrier ( soreg ) or a rail, this might easily be explained ;
and a barrier that ran through a lower room might easily be carried either
figuratively or actually through an upper one. But the Chel was a space
10 cubits wide, enclosed by a barrier which separated the profane from the holy ;
and how that can be said to run through a room is by no means clear.
Supposing, for instance, any of the rooms round the inner court were doubled in
extent in a direction north or south ; one-half might be said to be outside, one-
half inside the Chel ; but, in that case, the fact would be, that the Chel was broken,
and had ceased to exist certainly for the purposes for which it was intended
when this extension took place. As I have placed it, if we might consider the
passage, 10 cubits wide, leading to the Court of the Women under the Gazith as an
extension of the Chel round the inner Temple, the difficulty would vanish ; and

1 Lightfoot, p. 242.

2 Lightfoot, p. 338.

3 Lightfoot, p. 337.

Chap. IV.

GATES AND CHAMBERS.

Ill

this is probably what was intended. If so, the Chel again expanded to 35 cubits,
and formed the Court of the Women. There may be, indeed are, other modes
which could be suggested for getting over the difficulty ; but as this one seems to
meet all the circumstances of the case, better than any other I can suggest, it is
hardly worth while to dwell upon them. For our present purpose, it is sufficient
to know that the room Grazitli stood at this angle, and was considered as partly
belonging to the inner, partly to the outer, court of the Temple, and having
entrances from both.

Beyond this room Grazith, westward, there is very little difficulty in appor-
tioning to each part of the south front the use for which it was employed. The
only uncertainty arises from an embarras de riches.ses. We have more accom-
modation than we can find tenants for. Just over the draw-well room we
have the Chamber of the Abtines, who had charge of the incense used in the
services of the Temple, and were apparently persons of considerable importance.
Over the Water Grate was the chamber of the high-priest, where he purified
himself before taking part in the service of the Temple. The ground floor of
the next tower was used as a store for the selected wood to be used for the
service of the altar, for which it was most conveniently situated. The upper
storey was the room Parhedrim, or council-chamber, next to that of the high-priest.
Beyond this was the Grate of the Firstlings ; but we are not told what was over it,
nor to what purpose the room beyond was devoted, unless it was for the deposit
of these offerings, or, as Dr. Lightfoot suggests, they were slain there.1 In like
manner, we have only a very indistinct account of why the Grate of Kindling,
“ Hadlakh,” was so called, or of the purpose to which the large chamber beyond
was appropriated. Dr. Lightfoot suggests that it may be the place where
the Levites kept guard over against the vail,2 meaning thereby the vail which
separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. There is, in fact, in the
whole Temple no place so well suited for a guard chamber as this. It com-
mands all the entrances, and if there was any chamber of the guard, this is the
place where it would naturally be looked for.

It is hardly worth while pursuing this investigation further, for, as before
mentioned, the names and uses of these various gates and chambers is of very
little interest, except to specialists. They are not connected, historically, with any
events which such appropriations would elucidate, while, architecturally, it is
sufficient to know that this principal front of the Temple was divided into four
tower-like masses, between which were three double gateways leading from the
lower to the upper courts of the Temple, and extending over 210 cubits or
315 feet. For their uses, it is sufficient for our present purposes to know that
their lower storeys were appropriated to the supply of water and wood for the
service of the Altar and courts, and for the storage of offerings or guard chambers ;

1 Lightfoot, p. 359.

2 Lightfoot, p. 364.

112

THE TEMPLE OF HEKOD.

Past 11.

while their upper chambers were used as the vestries or council chambers of the
high-priest, and as the offices or residences of subordinate officials connected with
the Temple service. It need hardly be remarked that, as they were all, including
Gazith, of two storeys in height, they must have been connected with each other
by stairs, though none are shown in the plans. These are omitted simply because
they are not mentioned either in the Talmud or by Josephus, and there is no
indication as to where they may have been placed. Under these circumstances
it is open to any one to supply them wherever he pleases, and one arrangement
is likely to be as good as another. The best will only be an evidence of its
author’s ingenuity, but be of no historical value.

When from the southern we turn to the northern face of the inner Temple,
we find a very different state of things. In the first place, this fia^ade seems
alwa}^s to have been considered as what, in common parlance, may be called the
hack front of the Temple. The public always, of course, had access to the northern
Court of the Gentiles, which extended along it, and probably may have occasionally
circumambulated the Temple in this direction ; but no external entrance opened
into this court, for the passage through the Antonia could hardly ever have been
considered as a public thoroughfare, and the gateway Tadi or Teri was, as before
mentioned, disused at the time we are speaking of. In like manner, no access to
the inner Temple was permitted to either the men or women of Israel from the
northern side. All the three entrances on this side opened into the Court of
the Priests, and were available for the priests, and them only. Even on the
inside the men of Israel were only allowed to approach the northern range
of buildings by a narrow slip 11 cubits wide on the extreme eastern side of the
inner court, where apparently the Chamber of Shewbread was situated. All the
rest was appropriated to the priests, and forbidden to the laity. The first con-
sequence of this seems to have been that the gates on this side were single, and
probably less magnificent than those on the south, and the chambers more
numerous, but of a more utilitarian character, than those on the other side.

It is probably in consequence of their being of such minor importance that
the buildings on this side are described so carelessly and with so much less detail
than those on the south. But whatever the cause may be, it is at least certain
that neither the compilers of the Talmud nor their commentators have any clear
ideas on the subject of their arrangement. As Dr. Lightfoot says, each of the
gates had two names ; the centre one certainly had three. In two instances, at
least, different rooms had the same names, and, as he avers, one author describes
the various apartments from east to west, while another proceeds in a contrary
direction. All this is of course sufficiently perplexing, but still I do not think the
confusion is so great as the learned doctor makes it appear to be.1 Practically,
the whole difficulty hinges on the position of the Beth Mokadh. If it was — where

1 Liglitfout, chaps, xxviii.-xxxii.

Chap. IV.

GATES AND CHAMBEKS.

113

it was placed in the 1st chapter of the Middoth, quoted above — immediately
behind the Altar, all the rest is clear ; if, on the contrary, it is at the west end
of the range, where Lightfoot and others place it, I am afraid the confusion must
remain as hopeless as he represents its being.

The reason for placing the Beth Mokadh immediately behind the Altar will
be understood from the annexed diagram : —

Chel.

Descent to Chamber
of Baptism.

Stones of Altar.

Chamber

of Offering.

of Shewbread.

Court of Priests.

20. — Diagram explanatory of Betii Mokadii.

Beth Mokadh was by far the most important building on this side, and
consisted of five apartments on the ground floor. The central one was vaulted
(query, domed), and opened on the north on the Chel, on the south on the inner
court. Here the elders kept watch day and night, and here too the keys of the
court were always kept. It seems also that it was opposite the gate Tadi,1 and if
that gate was where I have placed it, this would settle the question. The south-
eastern chamber was where the shewbread was prepared and kept, and was,
according to this arrangement, next the place of the pancake maker, which was
on the north of the gate Nicanor. The south-west chamber was where the lambs
were kept for daily sacrifice, and it thus adjoined the Grate of Offerings. If
Mokadh was placed in the north-west corner of the court, the lambs would be at
the greatest possible distance from the Altar, and wholly disconnected with the
Gate of Offerings. The north-east chamber was called the Chamber of Stones,
because it was there that the stones of the Altar were stored up which had
been defiled by the Greek kings.2 Its situation exactly corresponds with that in
which the high-priest was shut up at the north-east angle of the Temple for seven
days before the ceremony of the sacrifice of the red heifer on the Mount of
Olives, and which bore this name. In order to reconcile this legend with his
position of the Beth Mokadh, Dr. Lightfoot, and, I presume, the Rabbis he
follows, introduce a second chamber bearing this name,3 but for which I can find
no authority elsewhere. The fourth room, in the north-west corner, led down to a

1 Middoth i. 9.

3 Lightfoot, pp. 379, 380.

2 Middoth i. 6.

114

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

bath or place of baptism, and by stairs up to some chambers. This, of course,
might be anywhere ; but the other three can, I fancy, only be where I have placed
them. The Beth Mokadh was, in fact, the principal building on this side, and as
such could only be placed opposite the only open space in the court. Its being
thrust into the north-west corner, behind the Temple, seems not only at variance
with architectural propriety, but also with the Talmudic indications, in so far as
I can understand them.1

The only passage, I know, that seems to contradict this view of the position
of the Beth Mokadh is one in Lightfoot, where he describes the perambulation of
the Temple by its guards.2 They seem to have divided themselves into two
companies, one perambulating the north and east sides, the other the west and
south, and they seem to have met in the house of the pastryman, adjacent to the
gate Nicanor. From this it seems evident that they started from the north-west
corner, and if from the gate Mokadh, this would go far to prove that its position
was there. But is not this just one of those cases where Dr. Lightfoot, or the
Rabbis, haviug assumed that Beth Mokadh was in this corner, would assume that
the procession started thence ? In opposition, however, to this, we know that a
barrack or chamber was erected over the cloisters at the north-west angle, where
the priests kept guard ; and, as before pointed out, this seems to have been attached
to the gate Nitzus.3 On the whole, it does not appear to me that Dr. Lightfoot
had any other authority for saying that the guard started from the Beth Mokadh
except that they did set out from the north-west corner, and as he had placed that
building there, he necessarily assumed it was thence. It seems, therefore, that we
should be as fully justified in substituting Nitsots for Beth Mokadh as he does
for the contrary assumption.

Assuming this for the present, the rest seems clear enough. The central
gateway was called the Gate of Offering, because by it, as by the opposite gate on
the south, offerings were brought in. It was called the Gate of Corban, because
the treasury of the inner Temple was situated immediately to the westward of it,
and it was miscalled the Gate of the Women, because the Rabbis confounded this
Corban with that in the Court of the Women under which the northern entrance
to that court passed. There seems, in fact, to be no doubt that, besides the various
chests or boxes for receiving alms, placed in the Court of the 'Women, and
elsewhere, there were two chambers so called ; one in the Court of the Women,
opposite to and corresponding in position and dimensions with the chamber
Gazitli ; the other in the northern range of the buildings surrounding the inner
Temple court ; and it is by confusing one with another, having no plan before
them, that the centre gate was by mistake called the Gate of the Women.

The last gate to the westward was called Nitzus or Nitsots, the Gate of Song
or of Sparkling,4 and also bore the name of Jeconiah because through it that

1 Lightfoot, 1^. 373.

2 Lightfoot, p. 106.

3 Middoth i. 5.

4 Lightfoot, p. 378.

Chap. IV.

GATES AND CHAMBERS.

115

unfortunate king was led to captivity. The question of which gate was the one
most likely to witness this event will depend on where the headquarters of the
Assyrian general then were. If in the city itself, which is most probable, it
would be by the most western gate. This, of course, is too vague to found any
argument upon, but, at all events, it is enough to show that there is no impro-
bability in this gate being so called.

There is one other reason why the gate Nit sots should be considered the
most western, which is that there was a room built over the cloister in front of it,
beyond the gate westward, where the priests kept ward above and the Levites
below.1 Such an erection, as shown in the plan, would be easy at this inner end,
but could hardly be placed in the open court behind the Altar, where it would
have been a deformity.

If this arrangement of the gates is conceded, the position of the three
remaining rooms follows as a matter of course. The room of “ washing ” was
next the Corban to the westward, and the rooms of Salt and of Parvah between
the gate Nitsots and the western wall of the court.

It is possible that some other arrangement of this northern range of
buildings, or some modification of this one, may be suggested ; but till this is
done, I believe the one proposed here meets all the exigencies of the case, in so
far as they are known to me at least ; and it is, at all events, quite sufficient for
all historical or architectural purposes. There is, however, one difficulty I have
passed over, because I cannot explain it. In describing the four chambers
of the Beth Mokadh, the Middoth says, “ two were in the holy place, and
two in the unconsecrated, and pointed rails formed the division between the
holy and the unconsecrated. 2

The difficulty here is of the same nature as that which arose in speaking of
the room Gazith ; but there it seems capable of explanation. Here I cannot
realise any arrangement by which the two northern rooms can be got outside the
Chel, unless wholly detached from the southern ones, which they certainly were
not, nor how the Chel could have been broken here. Perhaps it only means
that the two northern chambers opening on the Chel were considered as less holy
than the two southern, which opened on to the inner court of the Temple,
and that their partition wall was continued by rails across the central room
to mark this relative degree of sanctity ; if it was not this, I am afraid we
must wait for some suggestion which has not yet been offered.

The dignity and importance of the north front of the inner Temple
being so much less than that of the south front, its design most probably
corresponded architecturally with this relative inferiority ; and being more
liable to attack, the defensive masses would be extended, and the gateways
between them, besides being single, would be in narrower recesses, and con-

Middoth i. 5.

2 Middoth i. 6.

116

THE TEMPLE OF HEEOD.

Pakt II.

sequently less easy to be got at than those of the southern face. It is probable,
also, that, besides a difference in outline, the whole style of ornamentation in this
front would be simpler, but bolder, than that on the south front of the Temple.
These, however, are details that only interest any one who is designing
architectural elevations for the various fronts, and we are hardly yet in a position
to undertake these. Before attempting this, it is necessary to settle the plan
and disposition of the various parts, and that is all we have been trying to
elucidate at present, at least in so far as the courts are concerned. For the
holy house itself, it may be necessary to attempt something more, in order to
make it intelligible ; but for the courts, this hardly appears important, at least
in the present stage of the enquiry.

Chap. V.

THE COURT OP THE WOMEN.

117

CHAPTER V.

THE COURT OP THE WOMEN.

Unfortunately, the Middoth gives us very little real information about the
arrangement of the Court of the Women. It may have been that the authorities
from which that treatise was originally compiled considered it so much less
sacred than the Temple itself, that they left no particulars ; or it may be that the
Rabbis, finding it difficult to reconcile their theories with the facts, neglected to
quote the details. Whether from these or from some other causes, the practical
result is that all they tell us of this court is borrowed avowedly, but unintelli-
gently, from the Book of Ezekiel. First, they made the unpardonable blunder of
inserting into this court the whole of the 100 cubits they obtained in excess of
the true dimensions of the Mountain of the House, by their mislection of Ezekiel,
as above explained. They then made a second mistake, almost as glaring,
though not so disastrous, by assuming that this court was identical with the outer
or northern court of Ezekiel’s Temple ; and their description of it is avowedly
taken from the 46th chapter of the prophet’s vision, and the 21st and following
verses.1

We may say we know with certainty that no northern court was attached to
the Temple before the Captivity, nor indeed afterwards, for Hecatarus’ measure-
ments are quite sufficiently exact to prove this. It only existed in the prophet’s
brain, and there is nothing in the arrangements of Herod’s Temple that would
suggest the existence of any sacred adjunct on the northern side of any pre-
existing Temple. When, therefore, the Rabbis tell us that this court was 135
cubits square, and had in each angle a court or apartment 40 cubits square, we
can only say, the thing is impossible. Indeed, its improbability must have struck
even the Rabbis, had they been able to draw or appreciate a plan. The dispro-
portion of this court to its uses has already been insisted upon, but it is even
more apparent in speaking of the four angular courts. The first was “ the
chamber of the Nazarites, where they cooked their peace-offering, and polled their
hair, and cast it under the pot.” 1 A very small kitchen would surely have
sufficed for this. Another was where the priests selected the wood for the altar.
A third was for the lepers, who certainly would not be allowed to be numerous
within the precincts of the Temple ; and as to the fourth, one Rabbi forgets what

1 Middoth ii. 5.

118

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

it was used for, and another recollects that there they put wine and oil.1 It was
the lamp room, in fact, of the Temple. That there were four rooms in the four
corners of this court is more than probable, and they are shown in the plan of
this court, Plate II., as measuring 12 by 22 cubits internally — 18 by 33 feet — -
which would provide amply for all the uses to which the above description
would apply.

Besides these rooms, the court was a good deal encumbered by galleries,
which it is not easy to restore from such descriptions as we possess. As its
pavement was 7 ^ cubits lower than that of the court of the Temple, it is evident
that, even supposing there was no wall of separation, only those who stood or
the top of the stairs could see what was passing in the upper court. Only fifty or
one hundred persons, at most, of all those for whom this immense court was
provided, could really take part in the Temple services. It was partly to remedy
this, partly to admit of the separation of the sexes, “ who, being formerly mixed
promiscuously together, occasioned lightness and irreverence,” 2 that these galleries
were provided. It would not be difficult to restore them if it were worth while,
except as regards their height. Either they must have been very high, or the
wall between the courts must have been very low, if even then the women could
see what was passing in the inner court. They might hear, as they would be
only 50 cubits from the dukan , or pulpit, where the Levites stood when chanting
the Psalms, but had the court been 100 cubits wider, as the Rabbis would have
us believe it was, they would have been deprived of even this advantage.

The Rabbis seem to have been aware that the Court of the Women was not
concentric with the Temple court ; but the reason assigned for this, as quoted by
Dr. Lightfoot,3 is rather an effect than a cause. They — the Rabbis — say the

greatest space of the Mount was on the south, the second on the east, the third
on the north, and the least to the westward ; a specification that might be
interpreted in various ways, were it not that the Middoth adds, “ that in the
place largest in measurement was held most service,”4 which limits its application
to the inner Temple, no service, in their eyes, being held outside that sacred
precinct. Even then, however, the expression must be one of considerable
ambiguity till it is defined whence the measurements are taken. My impression
is that the Rabbis considered the Temple and its Altar as one and indivisible, and
measured from thence as from one object ; the consequence of which would be that
the figures would be 35 cubits on the south, 22 on the east, 16 north, and 11 west.

The same result, however, would be obtained if we consider the inner
court — 200 cubits by 150 cubits — as the sacred spot, and measure from that.
The figures would then stand, south 150, east 110, north 106, and west 74. The
east and north are a little too near one another in this scheme, which is otherwise
improbable, and some other may be suggested. The matter is not one of much

1 Middoth ii. 5. 2 Lightfoot, p. 311. 3 Lightfoot, p. 220. 4 Middoth ii. 1.

Chap. V.

THE COURT OF THE WOMEN.

119

importance. It is sufficient for us to know that the Rabbis were aware that there
was a greater space inside the court on the south than on the north side of the
central line of the Temple and Altar. They knew, consequently, that, as the two
gates of the Women’s Court, Shuslian and Nicanor, were opposite to each other,
and centred on the line of the Altar and the Temple, this court itself being
shorter, and having these two gates in its centre, the position of its centre could
not coincide with that of the inner court, but must be farther north.

There does not seem to be any doubt that Dr. Lightfoot was quite correct
in considering the Women’s Court as that which is called the Treasury in the
New Testament, and that it received this designation because in it were placed
the treasure chests in which the people deposited their contributions towards
the objects for which each of these was appropriated. “ The treasuries of the
Temple,” he says, “ were of a twofold nature and capacity — namely, treasure
chests and treasure chambers. The former were called Shopheroth, the latter
Lesacoth, and both bore the general name of Corban.” 1 There were thirteen of
the former class, and all, apparently, placed in the Court of the Women, to which
persons of both sexes were admitted, while women were jealously excluded from
the inner Temple ; and there were certainly two of the latter class, whose position
has already been pointed out — one on the north side of the inner court, and one
on the north of the Court of the Women, over the two angle apartments.2

Although the upper and inner court was by far the more important, and
in the eyes of the Jews by far the more sacred, to Christians the Court of the
Women is even more interesting, as it was within its precincts that nearly all the
events took place which are alluded to in the New Testament. It is, however,
almost certain that “ the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them
that sold doves,” 3 were in the Court of the Gentiles — probably in the great
thoroughfare of the southern Stoa. But it was in the Court of the Women
that Christ “ sat over against the treasury,” and saw the people cast in money,
and saw a widow throw in “ two mites,” 4 which she could only have done in a
place to which women were admitted. It was also here that John represents
Jesus speaking “ in the treasury, as he taught in the temple.” 5

It was in the inner gate of this court, called the Beautiful (Nicanor), that
Peter and John healed the lame man, and, when the astonished crowd followed
them, took refuge in Solomon’s Porch close at hand, and there preached to the
people in the words quoted in the 3rd chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. It
was the accusation that Paul had introduced a stranger into this court 6 which led

1 Lightfoot, p. 313.

2 Josephus’ mention of the Treasuries in the plural —

77 po tuv ya(o(j)v\aKLoni — in speaking of the porticos of the

inner court of the Temple (B. J. v. 5, 2) may either he

considered as indicating that there were more treasuries

than one in the inner Temple, or, what seems to me

more probable, that he referred to the porticos in both
courts, though I admit that a literal adherence to the
text will hardly bear that interpretation.

3 Matt. xxi. 12 ; Mark xi. 15 ; John ii. 14, 15.

4 Mark xii. 41 ; Luke xxi. 1.

5 John viii. 20. 6 Acts xxi. 28,

120

THE TEMPLE OF HEEOD.

Part II.

to the tumult and to the important series of events which are narrated in the
21st and subsequent chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. Now that the plan
of the place is known, it is easy to follow these events topographically. The
chamber where the four went to have their heads shaved and be purified was,
without doubt, the chamber of the Nazarites in the north-west angle of the
court. The castle was the Antonia, and the tumult may have taken place in the
northern Court of the Gentiles, between these two places. It is more probable,
however, that the tumult took place in the city, for it is said, “ They took Paul,
and drew him out of the temple ; and forthwith the doors were shut.” 1 This
cannot be applied to the inner Temple, as there is no evidence that Paul ever
entered it; they must consequently have expelled him by the western Parbar
Gate, and then sought to kill him in the city. This also is more consonant with
what we now know of the localities, for the soldiers ran down , from the castle, to
rescue him, and bore him into the Antonia, where he addressed the multitude from
the “ stairs,” leading apparently from the Gabbatha to the Judgment Hall of the
fortress ; in the very same localities in which the most important scenes of
Christ’s Passion had been previously enacted.

It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say more at present with regard to the
form or measurements of the courts of the Temple ; enough has been said to
explain the authorities from which these forms have been gathered and their
measurements ascertained. To go beyond this would be tedious, and could only
lead to disquisitions which are interesting to very few, and only intelligible to
those who are intimately familiar with the writings of the Rabbis, and with
the wonderful mysticism they threw over all that was connected with their lost
Temple or its ceremonial. As drawn on the plan, Plate II., the Temple speaks
for itself. Any one with the Bible, Josephus or the Talmud in his hand can
follow on the plan what is said in these works, and understand it, if it agrees with
what is written, or reject it if he finds it does not accord ; and this is all that can
be expected or required of a treatise like the present. The restoration of the
Temple itself is a matter of more general interest, but, it must also be confessed,
of greater difficulty ; but to this we must now turn, and try to find out how far
the materials requisite for this purpose are available, or how they can best be
utilised, so as to reproduce the forms of this celebrated building.

1 Acts xxi. 30.

Chap. VL

THE ALTAR AND THE TEMPLE IN PLAN.

121

CHAPTER VI.

THE ALTAR AND THE TEMPLE IN PLAN.

Thanks to the minute care with which it is described in the 3rd chapter of the
Middoth, there is very little difficulty in understanding the general form and
dimensions of the Altar, though some of its details, as given by the Rabbis,
can hardly be accepted without modification.

n 33CuVits-

21.— Plan and Elevation op the Altar.

The base of the Altar was 32 cubits square and 1 cubit in height. Within
this stood the platform, 30 cubits square and 5 cubits in height, thus bringing the
surface of the platform to the same level as the floor of the Temple. The same
level is attained by Ezekiel, but in a different manner. He makes the basement
2 cubits, and the rise 4 cubits,1 together 6 cubits, as in the Middoth. The
basement again receded 1 cubit all round, leaving a space of 1 cubit between
the 13th and 14th cubits from the centre, in which were fixed what were called

1 Ezekiel xliii. 14.

122

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

the “ horns ” of the Altar. Their number is not given in the Middotli, nor
their height, hut they seem to have been the posts to which victims were bound
when prepared for sacrifice on the altar. Ezekiel, however, distinctly specifies
their number as four,1 one, it is presumed, at each angle, and so they are
represented in the woodcut. Whether the place of the horns was on the level
of the platform, or 1 cubit higher, we are not told; but the context appears to
necessitate a rise here, making the place of the horns 7 cubits from the ground.
Within this was, first, the place for “the feet of the priests, one cubit,” and
the remainder, 24 cubits square, was called the hearth. We are not told how
these two were distinguished from one another, but my impression is, that the
place on which the priests stood was raised 1 cubit above the place of the
horns, and the hearth again 1 cubit above that. Such an arrangement would
be, at least, convenient, but some other means may have been adopted for
marking the distinction. Within the hearth — in its centre — stood the Altar,
properly so called, like that described in Ezekiel, 12 cubits square,2 and probably
2 or 3 feet in height. If it were higher, it is difficult to see how it could be
served by priests standing on the hearth. The whole height was almost certainly
10 cubits from the ground, as that is the height of Solomon’s Altar,3 and
apparently also of Ezekiel’s;4 but however this may be protracted, it comes so
near to that dimension, that it may confidently be asserted it must have been
attained. It is also the height we should infer from Josephus’ statement that the
altar was 50 cubits square by 15 in height. The first dimension can be proved to
be one of his usual exaggerations by turning feet into cubits. The Altar
certainly was 33 cubits square, as we shall presently see, or as nearly as may be
50 feet, and as he calls this 50 cubits, we may feel confident that, as in the case
of the gates above pointed out, it was one-third less, and if this is so on plan,
we may feel sure the same exaggeration was made as to the height. The most
distinct testimony, however, on this point is that of Hecafieus. He distinctly
states that the height of the Altar was 10 cubits,5 and his testimony appears, in
almost every instance, to be more trustworthy than that of Josephus himself.

Before going farther, it may be necessary to allude to a difficulty which has
proved a stumbling-block to many commentators. The Altar, it is said, and the
sloping ascent to it, were built of stones which no iron tool had touched— natural,
unhewn stones from the valley of Bethcerem.6 The sloping ascent may have been
so constructed — though I doubt it — but the platform with its perpendicular walls,
its drains to convey the blood of the victims to the valley of Kidron, its steps and
other complicated arrangements, could not possibly have been constructed with-
out the mason’s aid. What seems necessary here is to make a distinction between
the altar on which the victims were burnt and the platform on which that altar

1 Ezekiel xliii. 15. 2 Ezekiel xliii. 16. 3 2 Chron. iv. 1. 4 Ligktfoot, p. 393.

0 Josephus contra Apion. i. 22. 6 Middoth iii. 4.

Chap. VI.

THE ALTAR AND THE TEMPLE IN PLAN.

123

stood. For the latter such an arrangement was not only feasible, but appropriate.
A platform 3 or 4 feet high, built of cannon-balls of cast iron, would be, now, the
best mode of construction we could suggest. To light and maintain a fire on a
solid floor would always be a difficulty, but a platform erected with rounded
stones or spherical bodies of any sort, so placed as to allow a draught of air
through their interstices, would admit of this being done to perfection, and
was, no doubt, what was attempted.

In the description of the Altar in the Middoth 1 there is one point which it
seems, at first sight, a little difficult to explain. When the children of the Captivity
came up, it is said they added 4 cubits to the north and 4 cubits to the west of the
Altar, like a Greek gamma, r. The addition was made apparently to the 26 cubits
where the level space commenced, and it consequently made the distance from the
centre IT cubits north and west, while it was only 16 cubits south and east from
the centre. The motive of this addition seems clear enough. There was only one
approach, according to the Rabbis, to the Altar, by the sloping ascent on the
south side ; but as all the business of the Altar was done on the north side, it
seems absurd to suppose that everything was to be carried round, and that no
means of access to the platform of the Altar should exist where it was most
wanted and was most convenient. No ascent was wanted in the east. On the
south there existed the sloping ascent up which the victims were no doubt driven,
but which was not particularly convenient for the priests. But on the west
towards the Temple, and on the north towards the shambles, there must have
been means of access, and it was to provide these, probably in the manner shown
in the plan, that the Altar was enlarged on these two faces. As to the reason the
Rabbis give, that there were no steps up to the Altar, but only an inclined plane,
it is too absurd to bear a moment’s investigation, and is one of those misquotations
which occur too frequently in the Talmud. It is there said, quoting Exodus xx.
26, that “ neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar, that thy nakedness
be not discovered thereon." This may have applied to a priest stooping down,
with his back to the people, to serve on some form of altar we do not quite
understand, but can have no application to a person ascending lateral steps to
a platform on which the Altar stood. If this were so, no one could enter the
Temple without indecency, for the steps leading up to the Chel were higher
and as steep, while those ascending them turned their backs on the people
below, which was not the case with those ascending sideways to the platform
of the Altar.

It is not quite clear why the “ two openings like nostrils,” 2 through which the
blood spilt on the Altar flowed to the brook of Kidron, were placed at the south-
west, instead of the south-east, angle of the Altar, the latter being nearer the
outlet than the former. It probably was for some convenience in forming a

Middoth iii. 1.

2 Middoth iii. 2.

124

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

channel underground, or for the flushing of the sewer by water from Etam ; but
it is of little consequence to discuss, what only interests us as a fact, which is not
only distinctly asserted by our only authority, hut is confirmed by this being, in
all probability, the “ Lapis Pertusus ” of the Jews in the time of Constantine,1
on which, as will be afterwards explained, the Aksa was centred by the
Mahomedans. But, be that as it may, it is sufficient for us to know that it was at
the south-west angle that this precious stone was placed, and that those channels
which have been found cut in the rock under the Triple Gateway are those by
which the refuse of the Altar passing through these holes was discharged from
the Temple precincts, and either utilised as manure or allowed to run to waste.

The space north of the Altar, measuring about 40 cubits square, was devoted,
as already pointed out, to its service. The victims were apparently first tethered
to the rings, and were either slaughtered there or on the hearth while attached
to the horns of the Altar. If this were so, however, there must have been two
modes of sacrifice, for those skinned and cut up at “ the tables ” could not be
the same as those slain on the Altar and burned in its fires. Or was it that all
were slaughtered below, and their carcasses carried up afterwards to be burned
on the Altar ? These, however, are questions that do not belong to the
architectural arrangements, with which alone we are concerned at present,
and their discussion must be left to those who are more familiar with the
literature of the subject than I can pretend to be. All that is here attempted
is to explain the dimensions and architectural arrangements of the Altar ; its
ceremonial and uses belong to a totally different branch of the subject, though
the conclusions that may be arrived at regarding them will be considerably
facilitated by the enquiries on which we are at present engaged, provided the
means exist for bringing them to a successful issue.

Plan of the Temple.

After wffiat has been said above regarding the plans of Solomon’s and
Ezekiel’s Temples, it is easy to understand the alterations that were made in it
when rebuilt in the time of Herod, in so far, at least, as the arrangements
connected with the plan are concerned.

The Holy of Holies remained a cube of 20 cubits, and occupied the
same place as it had from Solomon’s days. The Holy Place was 40 cubits east
and west by 20 cubits across, and 30 cubits high, as before. The most
marked alteration was in the porch, which was made 11 cubits wide by
apparently 50 cubits north and south, bounded on the east by a wall 5 cubits
thick, while one 6 cubits in thickness separated it from the Holy Place,

1 Bordeaux Pilgrim, Tobler’s edit. p. 4. Appendix iv.

Chap. YI.

THE ALTAB AND THE TEMPLE IN PLAN.

125

making 22 cubits in all. These, however, are the dimensions given in the
Book of Ezekiel, and, though differing from those of Solomon’s Temple, can,
consequently, hardly be called innovations. The most important change was,
however, extending the width of the facade to 100 cubits, which was certainly
40 cubits in excess of that of Solomon, or of the Temple as erected after the
Captivity by Zerubbabel, and 30 cubits, apparently, in excess of that described
by Ezekiel. Whether the height was increased in the same proportion is a
question we shall have presently to discuss, but it certainly appears prima facie

22. — Plan op Herod’s Temple.
(Scale, 50 feet to 1 inch.)

that this must have been the case. As Zerubbabel’s Temple certainly had a
fa9ade the height of which was equal to its width,1 the presumpton is that the
same proportion was adopted here, and that a less height would in this instance
have seemed low and disproportioned.

One of the most pleasing features in Herod’s Temple was the magnificent
flight of steps that led up to its platform from the Court of the Priests. No such

1 Ezra vi. 3 ; Josephus, Ant. xv. 11, 1 ; ante, pp. 30 and 66.

126

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

perron is mentioned anywhere, as existing in any of the earlier temples, hut
these are described in their own quaint way in the Middoth, in such detail
that there is no reason for doubting their existence, and no difficulty in
understanding their form.1 They were twelve in number, of half a cubit
each in height, thus raising the floor of the Temple to the same height as
that of the platform on which the Altar stood. The treads were each 1 cubit
in breadth, and divided into three flights of four steps, each separated by
two landings of 3 cubits each, and leading to a platform in front of the doors of
the Temple, 6 cubits in width, as shown in the plans.

The Toran, or screen bearing the golden vine, which formed the principal
ornament of the fayade of the Temple, stood on the platform at the top of this
flight of steps. It will be described in detail farther on, but, meanwhile, it may
suffice to say that it occupied the same position in Herod’s Temple that was
assigned to the celebrated pillars Jachin and Boaz in Solomon’s, and had
apparently the same meaning, though what that was remains to he seen.2

Whatever may have been the case in the previous temples, the specification
of the Talmud is so distinct and reasonable regarding the little chambers that
surrounded that of Herod, that it may probably be accepted without hesitation.

According to the Middoth,3 there were thirty-eight little chambers in all :
fifteen on the north and fifteen on the south side, as in Ezekiel’s Temple, and
eight at the western end. The northern and southern were placed in three
storeys five over five, and on the west three over three, and two over them.
Even assuming that the number was greater in the earlier Temples — though
that is doubtful — this is so consonant with what we should expect from the
increased magnificence of the Temple and the increased luxury of the age that

1 Middotli iii. 6.

2 In Japan the principal distinction between Buddhist and Shinto temples is that the latter all have in front
ot them a toran consisting of upright pillars in granite, supporting two or more transverse beams in the same

23. — Japanese Toran. (From an original drawing.)

material. What they say is that, unless you pass under the toran on entering the temple, your prayers would
not be listened to. 3 Middoth iv. 3.

Chap. VI.

THE ALTAR AND THE TEMPLE IN PLAN.

127

we can hardly refuse to accept it, especially as it is so contrary to the usual
spirit of the Talmud to admit of such a change. The whole confusion, in fact,
seems to have arisen from a misconception of Josephus, who seems to have
blundered with regard to the number and height of those chambers to an
extent which is almost inconceivable in any one who had really seen the
building while it was still standing.

As the walls of the house were of the very unusual and unnecessary
thickness of 6 cubits (9 feet) at their base, there seems no reason for doubting
that these chambers were increased by offsets of 1 cubit each, as in the old
Temple ; and that though the lower rooms were only 5 cubits wide, the upper
were 7 cubits, and, with the dimensions in length now ascribed to them, made
really habitable apartments. A more difficult question is to ascertain how they
communicated with one another. Here the descriptions of the Talmud, as of
Ezekiel, are wholly unintelligible. A gallery gradually rising from the north-
eastern to the south-eastern seems impossible, as it would be on the level of the
floors only at the ends, and would cut across all the doors and windows of all the
cells. Equally absurd is the specification that each chamber had three doors, two
leading to the chambers right and left, and one to the chamber above it. The
probability is that the third door was described by the authority from whom
this quotation was taken as opening on a gallery from which access might be
had to the upper storeys.

As neither the Bible, nor the Talmud, nor Josephus has left us any
intelligible account of how these chambers were reached, we are left very much
to our own skill and ingenuity to devise such means as seem reasonable and
appropriate, and which at the same time do not contradict, even if they do not
explain, such hints as we find in our usual authorities. So far as I understand
the matter, the principal ascent was in one or both of the towers which formed
the extension of the fayade beyond the width of the porch ; and, as it seems to
have been remarkable for its ingenuity and magnificence,1 I presume it occupied
the whole area of the tower, and in that case must have been by an inclined
plane till at least it reached the level of the upper storey of chambers. Its
being so, is what seems to have misled the Rabbis into the idea that it extended
all round the house, instead of being only round a chamber in the interior of
the tower. On each storey it seems to have opened into a gallery. This the
Talmud and Ezekiel would lead us to suppose was closed, externally, by a solid
wall, but this is so contrary to commonsense and architectural propriety that I
have represented it — as was done in describing Ezekiel’s Temple ( ante , page 60)
— as an open verandah. Both for convenience and for beauty this would be so

1 Josephus, Ant. viii. 3, 2. This course applies
in strictness only to Solomon's Temple, hut we are
never sure when Josephus is speaking of Solomon’s

Temple that he is not describing Herod’s, and, vice
versa, in speaking of Herod’s that he is not raking up
some tradition that belongs to the earlier Temple.

128

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

infinitely preferable tliat I cannot fancy the architect of the Temple would be
so unskilful as not to adopt it. But whether this is the true explanation or not,
the arrangement shown on the plan is the one which, so far as I can form an
opinion, most nearly meets all the exigencies of the case as at present known,
and may consequently be allowed to stand till some better is suggested.

At one time I was inclined to believe that the ascent existed only in one of
these towers, that on the north-east ; and if it were wanted only to give access to
the little chambers, that would have been ample. But if there was an important
upper chamber to the Temple — and, as we shall presently see, that hardly admits
of being doubted — the existence of ascents in both towers seems almost indis-
pensable, while at the same time it is difficult to account for the existence of
these shoulders or wings unless they were intended to contain them.

If this were so, there would, of course, be no difficulty in communicating
with the little chambers in the north and south, and even with those in the west,
without making them thoroughfares. It also gets over a difficulty in the earlier
Temples, which otherwise it is not easy to explain. If, as hinted above, it is
probable there were no chambers at the west end of Ezekiel’s or Zerubbabel’s
Temple, the inclined plane of the Babbis becomes impossible, and access could
only be obtained by two staircases. At the same time we know, from the
minuteness with which the dimensions of the Temple east and west are specified
in the Middoth, that no gallery existed at the west end, even in Herod’s Temple.
To introduce it there, it would be necessary to extend the dimensions of the
Temple beyond 100 cubits, which, it need hardly be said, is impossible. The
conclusion, consequently, seems inevitable, that there were ascents in both
the wings, and that they gave access not only to the little chambers by their
gallery or verandah, but also to the upper room, or Alijah, which, as we shall
presently see, formed, in all probability, one of the most important parts of the
Temple.

Chap. VII.

THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION.

129

24. — Section of Herod’s Temple.
(Scale, 25 feet to 1 inch.)

CHAPTER VII.

THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION.

Plates III. and IV.

When from the ground plan and its dimensions we turn to the elevation and
the height of the Temple we find a far less satisfactory state of affairs, and
fewer means of testing the evidence that is put before us. Indeed, so contra-
dictory and improbable are many of the statements regarding the height, that
any one might feel perfectly justified in rejecting them altogether, and assuming
that a restoration is impossible from existing data. Except the height of the
two original apartments of the old Temple — the Holy of Holies and the Holy

130

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Pakt II.

Place — there are no statements of height that may not he disputed or against
which plausible arguments may not he advanced, in perfect good faith. Still,
I believe that the general dimensions and the appearance of this celebrated
building can be made out with fairly approximate certainty. At all events, it
is well worth trying to do so ; for its interest is unsurpassed, by that of any
building in the world, and if it can be done, a restoration of it settles many
curious problems which have occupied enquirers for a long time past.

Even the Old Testament hardly helps us here, for it has been, and may be,
argued with great show of reason that the figures representing heights in the
2nd Book of Chronicles, are mere duplications of those in the corresponding
passages in the Book of Kings,1 and it seems as if they were purposely made
so by the compiler of the Chronicles, after the Captivity, when the memory
of the old Temple had nearly passed away, in order to elevate the priesthood
and their Temple in the eyes of the people, which has been advanced as one at
least of the main objects of his compilation.2

It certainly is most improbable that Solomon’s Temple should have been
120 cubits high with the other dimensions given, and there is nothing
whatever in the dimensions of the Tabernacle to warrant such a height. We
may, however, probably feel sure that the dimensions at least of the fa£ade
of the Temple as rebuilt by Zerubbabel were 60 cubits in width and 60 cubits
in height.3 And, as pointed out above (page 30), it seems a perfectly fair
inference that these were the dimensions of the facade of Solomon’s Temple,
and also, if there was an upper room to it, that the ridge of its roof also
attained the height of 60 cubits, as shown on the right-hand side of woodcut
No. 5. If this is so, we may also conclude that, when the dimensions of the
facade were extended to 100 cubits in width, as they were in Herod’s time,
that the height too should be equally augmented. Anything, indeed, less than
this for a frontispiece would have looked squat and out of proportion.
Whether the body of the building could or could not be stretched to the
same extent is a question we shall presently have to discuss. At present it is
sufficient to state that it does not seem either possible or necessary.

Neither do I think any stress can be laid on Josephus’ assertion that
Solomon’s Temple was 120 cubits in height. That building had been destroyed
600 years before he wrote, and practically he had no more means of knowing what
it was like than we have ; indeed, his whole description of it, in the 8th book of
his ‘ Antiquities ’ is characterised by exaggeration and misstatements to a greater
extent than almost any other part of his work. When, however, he comes to
describe what was said and done by Herod, he is speaking of what was fairly within
his own cognisance, and there is an amount of detail, in what he rejiorts of Herod’s

1 2 Chron. iii. 4, 15; 1 Kings vii. 3, 15. 2 Speaker’s Commentary, Introduction to Book of Chronicles.

3 Ezra vi. 3, 4 ; 1 Esdras vi. 25.

Chap. VII.

THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION.

131

speech,1 the results of which he himself was familiar with, that looks very like
evidence, that could not well be put aside, unless by his own default. Notwith-
standing this, in his description of the Temple in the ‘Wars of the Jews,’ he
makes some statements with regard to height which would invalidate his evidence
in any court of law. He there states that “ around the lower part of the
Temple there were a number of small houses, in three storeys, the combined
height of which amounted to 60 cubits, but the upper part of the Temple had no
such little houses, because it was there narrower and 40 cubits higher.” “ Thus,’
he adds, “ we gather that the whole height, including the 60 cubits from the floor,
amounted to 100 cubits.” 2 Now, it need hardly be pointed out that a chamber
which, according to Josephus, was only 5 or 6 cubits square on the floor, yet
20 cubits in height, is a monstrosity that never, so far as I know, was committed.
Besides this, in that situation it not only would have blocked up the clerestory
windows of the Holy Place, but extended 20 or 30 cubits in front of the upper
chamber, and prevented its having windows, except above that height. The truth
of the matter seems to be, clearly, that the three storeys of little chambers were
20 cubits high, in the aggregate, and why Josephus should have multiplied this
number by three is inconceivable. He knew the place, and must have known
that it was only the frontispiece that reached the height of 100 or 120 cubits. As
the Rabbis express it, “The sanctuary was narrow (and low) behind and broad in
front, like a lion ; ” 3 and, knowing this, it seems strange they should be guilty of
such a misrepresentation, unless it was to make it appear that the back of the
house was of the same height as the front. It is evident from this statement
that Josephus believed some part was of that height, but how he could have
forgotten which, and what was the real form of the house, is one of those puzzles
we may never be able to solve. Whatever form the restoration may take, it
seems perfectly certain that Josephus was wrong in saying that the height of these
three storeys of chambers, and consequently that of the lower house, was 60 cubits.
We may say we know certainly that it was only half that, or 30 cubits — the
height, in fact, of the Holy of Holies- — and consequently that the Talmud is
correct when it gives the height of the three storeys of chambers as 20 cubits
(5 + 6 + 7, 4 plus the thickness of the two intermediate floors, say, 2 cubits).
If it was, as we understand it, that there was a frontispiece 100 or 120 cubits
high, with a lower building behind it, why could not Josephus say so ? He
knew the building, and knew its proportions, and its glory was as great in
the one form as in the other. He apparently thought it would sound grander
if he represented the whole as attaining the extreme dimension lie gives, and
he consequently falsified the real dimensions to the extent just stated.

As the Talmudists never saw the building, and, as I have frequently had
occasion to remark before, had no plan or section, and were incapable of preparing

2 B. J. v. 5, 3.

1 Ant. xv. 11, 3.

3 Middoth iv. 7.

4 Middoth iv. 4.

132

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

one, we need not wonder that they blundered as to heights. They knew, or at
least believed, that the Temple was 100 cubits wide, 100 high, and 100 long, but,
as is expressed in the passage just quoted, they knew that the first two dimensions
applied only to the facade, and were aware that it was narrower behind, though it
strangely did not occur to them that it might also be lower there also. It did not,
however, and they consequently set to work to make out the height as explained
in the 4th chapter of the Middoth and the 6th section, thus : —

Lower Storey.

Cubits.

Upper Storey.

Cubits.

The foundation .

Upper storey

. 40

The wall

. 40

String course

The string course

Rain channel

The rain channel

Beam

The heam ....

Plaster

The covering plaster

Battlements ....

100 cubits.

Scarecrow ....

49 cubits.

From this it will be perceived that the one storey is merely an ill-understood
duplication of the other, the thickness of the roof supplying what is required to
be added in order to balance the foundations in the other. But even then it
cannot for one moment be tolerated that the Holy Place should be made 40 cubits
instead of 30, which we may feel assured was its true dimension. Still less can
it be admitted that the upper chamber, assuming there was one, should be
40 cubits in height while its width was only 20 cubits. Though not quite so gross
an exaggeration as that of Josephus with respect to the little chambers, it is so
bad that it cannot be admitted.

From the above it seems tolerably evident that none of our three authorities
are likely to be of much use to us in our attempts to recover the dimensions of
the elevation of the Temple. There is only one point on which they are all
agreed, which is that the Temple, or some part of it at least, was 100 or 120
cubits in height ; and the problem that is consequently left to us, is to try if we
can construct an elevation which shall provide in a reasonable manner for all the
parts of the Temple as known to us, and at the same time be consonant with
the principles of the style of architecture then practised in Judtea, and without
being offensive or extravagant, though it may turn out to have been strange and
unlike any other building we are acquainted with in antiquity.

As said above, my impression is that it can be done, or, at all events, that it is
worth trying to do it, for its interest is extreme, and we have now probably all
the data for this attempt in as complete a state as they are likely ever to be
available for the purpose.

Chap. VII.

THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION.

133

Alijah, or Upper Room.

Among the various questions that a restoration of the Temple, when fairly
grappled with, gives rise to, few have been so much overlooked and neglected as
those connected with the Alijah, or upper room, which certainly existed over the
two lower apartments of the Temple, properly so called. No architectural
restoration that I am acquainted with introduces this feature in an intelligible
manner, and in no treatise that I have come across is there any attempt made
to explain the uses to which it might be applied. Both architects and authors
have, in fact, shirked the question, indeed, so far as I can gather, have ignored
even its existence. Yet there seems to be no doubt that such a chamber did
exist, and it was not put there without some very good reason for its
introduction, whatever that may have been.

No synonym for such a feature did or could exist in the Tabernacle, and only
one allusion to it, so far as I know, is found in the Old Testament, where it is said
that Solomon “ overlaid the upper chambers ” (of the Temple) “ with gold.” 1
This cannot, of course, refer to the upper storey of the small houses that surrounded
the Temple on three sides ; there was no possible reason why they should be
so adorned ; and, besides, the context shows that it was not to them that the
chronicler was alluding, but to something at least nearly equal in dignity and
importance to the holy house itself, described in the preceding verses.

One perplexing circumstance is that it is not alluded to by Ezekiel, as we
might expect it would be if it formed an essential part of Solomon’s Temple ; but
such evidence is too negative in its character to be of much weight in determining
a question of this sort. On the other hand, Josephus is quite distinct on this
point, though his evidence as regards Solomon’s Temple must be received with very
considerable caution. He first describes the lower Temple as 60 cubits in length,
20 cubits in breadth, while its height was equal to its length, or 60 cubits.
As usual, he is quite correct in plan, but his height is also, as usually, an
exaggeration by duplication. He then proceeds to state that there was another
building erected over it of the same dimensions, so that the entire altitude was
120 cubits,2 which there is every reason for supposing is also a duplication, the
probable height being, as above explained in woodcut No. 5, equal to 60 cubits,
including the upper room. In the ‘Wars of the Jews,’ he is more moderate.
Still, however, making the lower apartment double its true height, or 60 cubits,
he allows only 40 cubits for the upper room, making the whole height 100 cubits.3
The real height from the floor of the lower Temple to the roof of the upper
room, I believe to have been 50 cubits, as shown in the section woodcut No. 24,
or just half that height ; but of this hereafter.

The Middoth is quite distinct as to the existence of this room, but makes its

1 2 Chronicles iii. 9.

2 Ant. viii. 3, 2.

3 B. J. v. 5, 5.

134

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

height 40 cubits, or identical with that of the lower apartments ; but the Rabbis
were so evidently trying to eke out the whole height of 100 cubits by adding
together external and internal measures, and doubling, when necessary, those
which are still too small, that no reliance can be placed on their details.1

In the Middoth there is, however, an unconscious testimony to the correctness
of these views, all the more valuable because it is unconscious. If the Holy of
Holies was only 20 cubits in height, and the Holy Place 30 cubits, it is evident
that, if a level floor were carried east and west over the whole 60 cubits, there
would be left a void or entresol some 10 cubits in height over the Sanctuary, to
which access could only be obtained, either from the Holy of Holies itself or
from the Holy Place, by ladders, which would enable workmen ascending them
to look into the most holy place over the screen in front of it. As this could not
possibly have been tolerated, the Middoth tells us that means of access were
provided by trap-doors in the floor of the Alijah, through which the workmen
were let down in chests.2 From this it seems clear that, if this level floor had
not been made, this useless void would not have existed, and the trap-doors
would have had no meaning.

Although, therefore, there seems no reasonable doubt of the existence of such
a chamber, certainly in Herod’s Temple, and most probably in Solomon’s also, it
is very difficult to ascertain to what use it could have been applied. This
uncertainty, I fancy, in a great measure arises from the fact that none of the
learned Rabbis who, at least in modern times, have devoted themselves to the
study of the subject, have had the fact of its existence brought prominently before
them. The subject has, by common consent, been put aside, and no one has
consequently looked for any explanation that may exist in the Talmud or
elsewhere. Perhaps none is to be found ; but even then this would be no argument
against the fact of its existence ; for, by a parity of reasoning, no one doubts the
existence of the little chambers surrounding the house itself, though none of our
usual authorities hint at the use to which they were applied. Notwithstanding
this, it seems hardly open to doubt that they were the residences of the Levites
or priests, whose special duty it was to attend to the Temple and its services ;
and if this were so, one suggestion, at least, seems to be, that the upper room
may have been the coenaculum, or great hall of the monastery, where the quasi-
monks met for social or liturgical purposes.

In studying attentively the arrangements of the Temple, there is nothing
more remarkable than the total absence of any hall or covered place that could be
used for synagogal or congregational purposes. The Holy Place was too crowded
with other objects, and had, besides, no bema and no desks, or any fittings suited
for the reading of the law, the chanting of the Psalms, or any liturgical purpose
whatever. Yet we cannot but believe that some sort of daily service was

1 Middoth iv. 6.

2 Middoth iv. 5.

Chap. YII.

THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION.

135

performed in the Temple, which afterwards was modified into that used in the
provincial synagogues at a subsequent period, and it is as difficult to believe that
all the Temple services were performed in the open air. Besides this, it seems
generally to be admitted that there was a great synagogue — the “ great con-
gregation” of the Book of Maccabees1 — “consisting of the priests, and people,
the rulers of the nation and elders of the country,” and that they had their
meeting-place in the Temple ; but where they met, no one yet has pointed out.
It was not, apparently, in the room Grazith, as some have supposed ; 2 that was
appropriated to the use of the Sanhedrim, and, so far as I can gather, used for no
other purpose ; hut if there was a Temple-synagogue, or anything of that nature
holding its meetings in the Temple, no place could be so appropriate as this
Alijah. This will, of course, be met by the objection of the Rabbis, that no one
was allowed to sit in the courts of the Temple unless he were “ one of the Kings
of the House of David.” 3 Like many of the statements, however, of the Talmud,
this must be received with caution. Numbers of priests and Levites slept in the
Temple every night, and if the small chambers round the Temple were really
residences, which seems almost certain, their occupants not only sat, but slept,
and in fact lived, in these cells ; and where men may live, others may surely meet
and deliberate, even sitting. Be this as it may, the suggestion that this Alijah
was the meeting hall of the great synagogue,4 consisting of 120 persons or more,
seems to me to meet the exigencies of the case more than any other ; but I
merely offer it as a suggestion which may be left for future investigation.
Meanwhile, what would assist us most in our enquiries would be the discovery
of some temple, or group of temples, having little cells and arrangements
somewhat similar to those at Jerusalem. Except the Birs Nimroud, however,
no temple is known having cells in two or three storeys ; but the other
arrangements of that temple 5 — at least, so far as we know them — are so unlike
those at Jerusalem that very little assistance is to be obtained from that
source. The buildings most like the Jewish Temple are probably the Buddhist
viharas of India. These consist of large halls surrounded by cells in from
one to seven and even a greater number of storeys in height. The central
halls seem always to have been used as the places of liturgical assembly of
the monks, to the exclusion, probably, of the laity, and in more modern times
became image halls or places of idolatrous worship, though in earlier days seem
to have been wholly adapted to synagogal purposes. It may, at first sight, seem
absurd to compare things so far apart, and, in some respects, so dissimilar ; but it
must be borne in mind that no two sects, both in their tenets and their practices,
were more similar to one another than the Buddhists and the Essenes, and that

1 Maccabees xiv. 28.

2 Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. pp.

380 et seqq. Edersheim, Sketches of Jewish Life,

chap. xvi. p. 249 et seqq. 3 Lightfoot, p. 338.

4 Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. pp.
380 et seqq.

6 See my History of Architecture, vol. i. p. 153, wood-
cuts 48, 49.

136

THE TEMPLE OF HEKOD.

Pakt II.

the latter, with the Pharisees and Sadducees, made up the hierarchy of the
Jewish priesthood at the time of the rebuilding of the Temple by Herod.

An objection is sure to occur to most people, that none but priests could
enter the inner court of the Temple, and consequently that the Alijah was
unsuitable for synagogal purposes. In order to meet this I have provided a
small door in the basement of the south tower, by which access could be obtained
to it from the Court of the Men of Israel without entering that of the priests at
all.1 At one time I drew it with an important entrance above the basement, and
with a flight of twelve steps leading up to it ; and I do not feel at all sure now
that this is not the correct view to take of it ; but as no mention of these steps
or of this entrance is made anywhere, I have refrained from introducing it in
the illustrations. The mode, however, in which this tower and its entrance are
centred on the central, and consequently principal, entrance into the inner
Temple, from the Court of the Gentiles, justifies, even if it does not demand,
such an arrangement. An entrance is certainly wanted here to satisfy the
architectural exigencies of the design. Whether or not it should be more
important than that I have drawn, may be left for future consideration.

Roof.

The next feature in this restoration, which consists in covering the Temple
with a steep roof 20 cubits in height, is one which will probably give rise to

more adverse criticism than any other part of the design ;
yet I do not see how it can be avoided. In the first place,
it gets rid of a difficulty which no one has yet fairly faced.
In his description of the building, Josephus says, “ On its
top it had spikes with sharp points to prevent any pol-
lution of it by birds sitting upon it.”2 That this was not
a mere random assertion is proved by the fact that in
the last days of the siege it is narrated that the priests
who had taken refuge in the Temple “ plucked up the
spikes that were upon it with their bases, which were of
lead, and hurled them at the Romans instead of darts”3
— a piece of incidental evidence that appears quite
sufficient to confirm the former statement. Assuming this,
therefore, to be the case, let any one try to cover a whole
flat roof with spikes, so that the birds shall not settle upon it. Supposing they
are placed 6 inches apart, it would be a perfect paradise for sparrows and little
birds and even pigeons to build their nests in. All the dust and leaves that

25. — Spikes on Ridge and
Cornices of Temple.

1 Frontispiece and Plan, c. 21.

2 B. J. v. 5, 6.

3 B. J. vi. 5, 1.

Chap. VII.

THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION.

137

were blown about in high winds would settle there, while no one could get upon it
to sweep or clean it. Along a ridge or a parapet spikes of a pyramidal form, say
6 or 9 inches wide at base, and a cubit or more in height, might prevent birds
settling there ; but on a flat roof it seems impossible to arrange them so as to
afford the required protection. Nothing, however, is more probable, from what
we know of their love of ceremonial purity, than that the Jews should desire
this protection ; but I, at least, do not know of any means by which they could
attain it, except by making the roof so steep that birds could not rest upon it.

The Rabbis seem to have been aware that the roof of the Temple was not
flat, though they had no idea, apparently, that it was so steep as shown in the
illustrations (woodcut No. 24, and Plates III. and IY.). Constantine l’Empereur
quotes a Rabbi, Schemeja, as saying that the roof was inclined upwards till
its crest equalled the height of the parapet.1 It was, according to him,
what Yitruvius calls depluviatum , and he brings forward a considerable amount
of evidence to prove the existence of a ridge, though he understood this,
apparently, to be only such as might exist in any classical temple. There
is, however, a passage in Josephus which seems very nearly to settle the
question. When Herod undertook to rebuild the Temple, he is reported “ to
have taken away the old foundations, and to have erected a temple 100 cubits in
length and 20 additional cubits in height, which 20 on the sinking of their
foundations fell down, and this it was we determined to replace in the time
of Nero.” 2 The passage seems corrupt, and difficult to translate literally ; but
the above appears to be what is meant, and as such has hitherto formed a
stumbling-block to all commentators. It seems impossible, in the first place,
to understand how the foundations of a building standing on the natural rock
could sink ; and if they did, why the whole building, and not only the “ 20
additional cubits,” should require re-erection. The solution of the mystery is,
I believe, to be found in a passage farther on, where it is narrated “ that
John abused the sacred materials, and employed them in the construction of
his engines of war. For the people and the priests had determined to shore
up the Temple and raise it 20 cubits higher, for King Agrippa had, at a very
great expense, brought together such materials as were proper for such a
purpose, being pieces of timber very well worth seeing for their straightness
and largeness,” &c.3 From this it would appear that it was a wooden roof or
tower of 20 cubits height that failed, not one of stone, and therefore wood only
was required for its reconstruction. Taken literally, it would appear as if it
were only the roofs of the towers of the fa£ade to which this description would
apply, and it may be so ; but these are too insignificant, and would be so easily
repaired that it is not likely they would be mentioned twice and in such detail.
It must have been for the repairs of the main roof of the building, that such

1 L’Empereur, p. 162.

2 Ant. xv. 11, 3.

3 B. J. v. 1, 5.

138

THE TEMPLE OF HEBOD.

Part II.

extensive preparations were made ; but in most of Josephus’ statements about
the holy house there is a degree of confusion difficult to understand. All,
therefore, that can well be contended for here is that these twenty additional
cubits refer to the wooden structure of a roof ; and if this is so, there is no
a priori improbability in the suggestion here put forward. In so far, at least,
as I can form an opinion on the subject, this plan meets the difficulties of the
case more completely than any other I am acquainted with.

With all this, however, we only reach 80 cubits in height for the main
body of the building, which is an impossible halting-place. It would have
been better to stop at 60, but if we must go on to 100 or 120, it is obviously
only in the frontispiece or fa£ade that this can be effected, and there it
does not seem difficult. In the first place, the 20-cubit roof, just described,
must butt against something. I have suggested an open gallery, not only
because it is the only architectural feature that, it seems to me, would be
appropriate here, but because there are some events connected with the
destruction of the Temple which are difficult of explanation without some such
arrangement as this.

Towards the end of the siege, when the Temple was taken, and its courts fully
occupied by Roman soldiers, Josephus relates that the priests took refuge in a
place which he calls “ the wall ” (eVi rov tol^ov), and which he describes as 8 cubits
broad. That it was near the roof is certain, because from it they plucked the
spikes, as above mentioned, and threw them down on the Roman soldiers, and also
because, when the Temple itself was in flames, two of their number, whose names
are given, threw themselves down into the flames ; the remainder holding out for
five days, till, pressed by hunger, they were forced to surrender, and were put to
death by Titus’ order.1 It was during this time that a boy was allowed by the
soldiers, who pitied his youth, to come down and get a drink, and escaped back to
his friends with a can of water, before the soldiers could overtake him.2

From these circumstances, it seems evident that there was a gallery in the
propylon, where the priests could hold out for five days after the Temple itself
was reduced to ashes ; and I presume it was open in front, not only because the
architectural ordinance appears to demand this, but because there are in Syria a
considerable number of churches which seem to be reminiscences of some forgotten
buildings or styles. The most typical of these, so far as we know it, is that
at Tourmanim.3 It is true that, according to De Yogiie, this church belongs to
the sixth century, but there are others, such as Babouda, in the fifth century, or
Kalb Louzeh,4 which, I fancy, are earlier, which show the same tendency, and,
moreover, this type occurs so generally in the East, in subsequent ages, that
it seems as if it must have been invented at an early age.

2 B. J. vi. 6, 1. 3 De Vogiie', Syrie Centrale, pi. 130-136.

4 De Vogiie, Syrie Centrale, pi. 122-129.

1 B. J. vi. 5, 1.

Chap. VII.

THE TEMPLE IN ELEVATION.

139

It is true, Josephus calls the place “ a wall,” and says it was 8 cubits broad,
but there was no wall, as far as can be made out, of that width in the Temple,
and this gallery must have been 1 1 cubits wide, if we may trust the Talmud ;
but Josephus’ narrative of events is in all instances so much more trustworthy
than his statements of facts, that I do not think this discrepancy of much
importance in the present instance.

26. — FAgADE of Church at Tourmanim. (From De Vogue.)

From these elements the elevations of the Temple have been compiled which
are shown in Plates III. and IV., and, in perspective, on the frontispiece of this
work. The result wa,s unexpected by me, and probably will be to most who
look upon it for the first time ; but it appears, nevertheless, to be in strict
conformity with the various passages I have quoted, and with such local
indications as are available. It seems also to afford a reasonable answer to all
the questions raised in the preceding discussion. Whether it is the answer,
and the only one that can be given, remains to be decided ; but this must be
done by others who have studied the question from some other point of view,
so as to afford a means of comparison between two different designs.

140

THE TEMPLE OP HEROD.

Part II.

CHAPTER VIII.

FAQADE.

Before attempting to restore the architectural features of the fa9ade, it may be
as well first to describe in some detail the features of several buildings in Syria
the remains of which throw some light on the subject, and may enable us to
realise, to some extent at least, the forms we are attempting to reproduce.

Of all those yet brought to light, the small temple of Baalzamin at Siah,
in the Hainan, illustrated by De Vogue in his ‘ Syrie Centrale,’ 1 2 and partially

27. — Plan of Temple of Baalzamin. (From De VogiD.)2

described by him in the ‘ Recovery of Jerusalem,’ 3 but more completely in the
text of his own work, would, if slightly more perfect, throw more light on the
architecture of the Temple at Jerusalem than any other known building. It bears
the same relation to its prototype that a medireval parish church does to its
metropolitan cathedral. From inscriptions upon it, it has been ascertained to be
of nearly, at least, the same age, Herod’s name and that of the early Agrippas
being mentioned in them.4 It stood at the back of a square court, surrounded by a
colonnade which was entered from the east by one gateway of great magnificence,
placed unsymmetrically to the main building. Having been used as a fortress at

1 Syrie Centrale, pi. 2, 3.

2 In the plan in woodcut No. 27, the parts black are
taken from De Vogue’s plate. The parts in outline are

suggestions of my own, for which there is no direct
authority. The restoration of this facade given by
De Vogiie, p. 33 of his recently published text, is

wholly inadmissible, viewed either from a constructive

or an archaeological point of view; the substructure
would not support the second storey. It is far too weak
for that purpose ; and the architectural ordinance accords
neither with the existing remains, nor with what we
know of the style of the day.

8 Recovery of Jerusalem, pp. 419 et seqq.

4 Syrie Centrale, pp. 35, 36.

Chap. VIII.

FACADE.

141

some time, the plan of its interior cannot now be well made out ; further than that,
the fat^ade was flanked by two square tower-like masses, measuring more than
17 feet each way, between which was a deeply recessed pronaos, with two pillars
between the towers, which seem to have sujjported a gallery. It is certain,
says De Vogue, that “the sanctuary was of two storeys, if not over the whole
surface, at least over the fayade ” ; 1 and my impression is, though of course it is
difficult to restore a ruined building you have never seen, that the two towers
were connected by an open gallery behind the present pillars, which are too

! 1 ! ! L

scale: or r£c r

28. — Details of Facade of Temple of Baalzamin.

weak and too widely spaced to bear any such superstructure. The ornamentation
consists principally of a vine spread over the surface, as, we shall presently see,
was the case at Jerusalem ; but, curiously enough, there is an eagle, with
outstretched wings, under one of the architraves, which recalls the one in Herod’s
Temple which led to the disturbance that occurred during his last illness.2 The
bases, too, of the pillars have a curious resemblance to what we find at
Jerusalem, as they are really inverted capitals, with alternate acanthus and water
leaves, very similar to the capital of the monolith in the Huldah Gateway,
which formed the southern entrance to the Temple. Altogether, this building,
both in its arrangement and its decoration, is so completely a miniature

1 Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 420,.

2 Ant. xvii. 6, 3.

142

THE TEMPLE OP HEROD.

Part II.

reproduction of the Temple at Jerusalem that whatever is found in it may
safely be repeated in the other, the only cause of regret being that so little
of it is left standing.

Besides this interesting little building, there is a group of monuments
opposite the Temple in the valley of Jehoshaphat, the study of which may afford
us some hints for our restoration. The two principal ones are known popularly
as the tombs of Absalom and Zacharias, and are monoliths cut out of the rock.

29. — Tomb of Zacharias, Valley of Jehoshaphat. (From a photograph.)

The southern one, shown in the annexed woodcut, retains apparently its original
form unchanged, and consists of a cubical base ornamented with three-quarter
Ionic columns on each face, and is surmounted by a plain pyramid, the section of
which is an equilateral triangle.1 The other, the so-called tomb of Absalom,
appears to have been originally identical in form, but as the rock was not

1 A building very like this is represented in Renan’s
Mission de Phenicie, p. 118. It is two storeys in
height, adorned with pilasters at the corners in the
lower storey, but with four in each face in the upper

one, and the pyramidal roof seems identical with that of
these monoliths. Other buildings with similar pyramidal
roofs, some even taller than those at Jerusalem, will be
found in plate's xvi., xvii. and xxxv. of the same work.

Chap. YIII.

FACADE.

143

sufficiently high here to furnish the requisite pyramid in the same stone, this
was added structurally. The consequence was that at some subsequent period —
probably in Byzantine times — the pyramid was removed, a sepulchral chamber
excavated in the base, and the present, curiously designed terminal added,
instead of the simpler form which it replaced. Between these two is a third, of
a totally different design, known as the Tomb of St. James, or the Retreat of
the Apostles. For whatever purpose it was originally designed, it certainly is
now a sepulchre of the usual type found in first-class tombs about Jerusalem, and,
like many of these, has an open facade composed of two Doric pillars in Antis.

At the north end of its fa<jade there is a curious tower-like mass cut in the
rock, the use and intention of which have never been explained.1

30. — Tomb of St. James, Valley of Jehoshaphat. (From a photograph.)

The age of the last tomb was ascertained by De Vogue, from an inscription
upon it, to be of the time of Herod,2 which, indeed, we gather from its
architecture, as well as from that of the two others. They could not possibly
be before the time of Pompey. As a matter of fact, no trace of stone
architecture has yet been found in Syria earlier than the advent of the Romans ;
and from the style of the so-called Tomb of Jehoshaphat, behind the Pillar of
Absalom, and consequently more modern, we may safely assume that, at latest,
they belong to the first half — probably the first years — of the first century of
our era. They may be earlier, but not later.

The reasons for believing that this group of monuments is somehow or other

1 1 need hardly say I reject entirely, as purely imaginary, the restorations of these tombs proposed by Las

Cassas, and repeated in Munk’s Palestine, and elsewhere. ~ 2 Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 46.

144

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

connected with the Temple are, first, the negative one, that the monoliths were
not originally tombs, while it is difficult to conceive what they were, unless
some such purpose as this is assigned to them.

The second is that, if the two monoliths are connected by a line perpendicular
to their faces, it will run behind the one and in front of the other, and if that
line is bisected, and the bisecting line produced at right angles to the original
line, it will cut the centre of the Altar. They were not placed exactly in front
of the Temple, because apparently there was no suitable mass of rock there, but
they were made to face it as nearly as possible.1

31. — Position op Tombs in Valley op Jehoshaphat. (From Ordnance Survey.)

A third reason is that the distance between the centres of the two monoliths
is exactly double that of the two towers of the Temple.

The Tomb of St. James faces more to the south, but if a line be produced
perpendicular to the face of the tower on its northern end, this line would fall
exactly on the projecting stone which has been assumed to be the beginning of
a bridge at 90 feet from the south-east angle of the Haram area.2 Certainly,

1 The map from which the woodcut in the text is

taken is on so small a scale, l-2500ths, that the thick-
ness of a line may make a deviation in the direction
of several feet or even yards. The woodcut can only
therefore be considered as a diagram explanatory of the

text. It would require special observation on the spot
to verify the statements here made, if the indications
were thought of sufficient importance to warrant the
trouble.

2 Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 151.

Chap. VIII.

FACADE.

145

if there is any trace of the Bed Heifer Bridge to he found, it is this. If it be,
it was in wood, and must have sloped downwards at a considerable angle; but
this, if we may trust Lightfoot, is no objection.1 Quoting Maimonides, Lightfoot
repeats that the arched causeway by which the red heifer was taken across the
valley of the Kidron to where she was burnt was called “ Ivebesh,” the name
applied to the sloping ascent to the Altar on its south side. In support of this
view, it may be remarked that the rectangular sinking in the centre of the
tower, near its base, is not and never was intended to be a window. Like one
directly below it in the rock, it is a countersinking perfectly adapted for the
reception of the end of a wooden beam of a trussed bridge ; but if not made
for this purpose, it is difficult to guess for what it was intended. The most
serious objection to this theory that I am aware of is that the bridge would
pass over graves if this excavation was originally filled with loculi , as it now

is, and the priest could hardly escape ceremonial pollution in passing over
them. It may, however, have been that, like the Pillar of Absalom, it was
not originally intended to be used as a tomb, and further that these niceties
of ceremonial pollution are the invention of a later age, or other means may
be found of explaining this. Be this as it may, these coincidences seem so
remarkable that they convince me that there was some connexion between
these monuments in the valley of Jehoshaphat and the Temple opposite, and
though it looks like reasoning in a bad circle, I cannot help believing that
these two pinnacles with a colonnade between were somehow or other intended
as a reflex of what was found on the western side of this valley.

If this is thought fanciful, it is open to any one to reject it. It seems to
me to explain what otherwise is mysterious, but I by no means insist upon

it. All I do contend for is, that we have here a group of contemporary monu-
ments, the details of which we are perfectly justified in copying for our
restoration of the Temple, even if we cannot prove that they are parts of the
same design.

With these new elements, we may now proceed a little further in our
restoration of the fa9ade with some confidence. If we could depend on Josephus’
dimensions of the internal width of porch — 50 cubits2 — the towers would of
course he each 25 cubits square, but the other dimensions he quotes with this —
20 cubits for the breadth and 90 cubits for the height internally — are so
extravagant that they must be rejected, and little confidence can consequently
be placed on the remaining one. By protraction I make it 48 cubits, and
the towers consequently 26 cubits each. I willingly would make them project
4 cubits or even 5 cubits beyond the face, not only for the architectural effect,
but also to make their faces flush with that of the Toran, or screen; but it is
evident the projection can only be 2 cubits, because it seems indispensable that

1 Lightfoot, p. 394.

2 B. J. v. 5, 4.

146

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

the centre of the towers should be in the centre of the court, and opposite the
central gateways on either side. Thus, if to the space behind the Temple —
11 cubits — we add the Temple — 100 cubits— with a projection of 2 cubits, the
sum is 113 cubits, from which, if we deduct half the width of the towers, we
get 100 cubits, which is the exact sum we require : 26 cubits is also the exact
width of the double gateway that led up to this tower from the south.

Admitting these elements, the roof of the central gallery would carry us
up to the desiderated height of 100 cubits, and would also get over a difficulty
in Josephus’ description, not otherwise easy of explanation. He says: — “The
outward face of the Temple was covered over with plates of gold, and at the first
rising of the sun reflected hack a fiery splendour that caused those who looked
upon it to turn away.” 1 To say that the whole front was so covered, or that
even all the “ white stone,” of which he says it was built, was also gilded,
seems absurd. It is, however, reasonable to assume that such roofs as are
shown in this design, with the capitals of the pillars, which were probably in
metal, may have been gilded, and that such an amount of gilding would justify
his rhetorical expressions, and be in perfect accordance with what we may safely
believe the splendour of this Temple to have been.

If to these towers we add pyramidal roofs copied from those existing in the
valley of Jehoshaphat, we arrive naturally, and, it appears to me, gracefully,
at the extreme height — 120 cubits — demanded by two at least of our three
authorities. It is true the building so designed has more the look of a late
Byzantine or medigeval building than anything we would expect at so early
an age. We must not, however, run away with the idea that pyramidal roofs
or tall buildings were unusual in that age in Syria. In De Vogue’s work
alone there are five or six examples given, ranging from the fourth to the sixth
centuries,2 some two-storeyed and generally with pyramidal roofs much steejier
than those in the valley of Jehoshaphat. Indeed, my own impression is that
the tomb at Soudeideli, which he gives as the oldest building in Syria (first
century), had a pyramidal roof like the others. Like the pyramids of Egypt, it
is now apparently in steps, but, like them, may originally have had a straight-
lined facing. Whether this was so or not, enough remains to show that in the
early ages of Christianity such pyramidal terminations were not uncommon, and
may very probably have been used in this position.

Though taller than might at first sight be expected, it appears to me that
such a design is far from being ungraceful. With the fixed dimensions of
100 cubits in width I have drawn and re-drawn it with a height first of 80 cubits
and then 100 cubits, but the result has always been so squat and unpleasing that
I. have been obliged to abandon these proportions. By introducing flat roofs, and
breaking the facade into two masses like the pylons of an Egyptian temple,

1 B. J. v. 5, 6.

2 Syne Centrale, pi. 70, 74, 75, 77.

Chap. VIII.

FACADE.

147

something might be done in that direction which woidd not be offensive. The
difficulties, however, of making such a design agree with the elements we have,
appear to me insuperable ; besides that, we have no authority for supposing that
in Herod’s time the Jews would go to the hanks of the Nile for their inspiration,
rather than to the quasi-classical styles which the Romans were spreading over
the length and breadth of their empire, and which, as we see at Petra and
elsewhere, always affected height and many-storeyed magnificence.

Another reason why 120 cubits should be preferred as the total height of
this facade, instead of 100 cubits, is that it is so much more consistent with the
Jewish system of duplication, so frequently insisted upon in the preceding pages ;
and from which all the dimensions of Herod’s Temple were practically obtained.
Thus, it will be recollected that the total height of the Tabernacle was 15 cubits,
and this doubled, or 30 cubits, became consequently the height of the Holy
Place. This doubled again, or 60 cubits, became the height and width of the

fagade, and, possibly, also of the Temple itself in Solomon’s time. It seems,

therefore, more than probable that the architects should aim at doubling this
height again in the fagade of the last and greatest of their temples.1 To be quite
logical, they ought to have extended the width also to 120 cubits; but as
they were restricted, not only by the nature of the locality, but by divine

ordinance, to a depth east and west of 100 cubits, such an extension north and

south would not only have been useless, but have thrown the whole design out
of harmony. Under these circumstances, 100 cubits to the ridge of the roof,
and 120 cubits to the summit of the towers, seems such a compromise as
Herod's architects were likely to hit upon, and to have been considered by them
as carrying out the true principles of their art, and at the same time satisfying
the requirements of the divinely ordained dimensions of the Temple.

It must be left to others to decide whether the above is a sufficient solution
of the difficulties as to height which have been found so perplexing in the

1 The most remarkable attempt that has been made
since its destruction to realise the forms or dimensions of
the Temple at Jerusalem was by a Cavaliere Antonelli,
in a synagogue which he was employed a few years
ago to erect in the city of Turin. Not content, how-
ever, with the unusual height to which Herod had
already carried the facade of his Temple, he resolved
to do for it, what Solomon had done for the Taber-
nacle, and to double or quadruple the dimensions
throughout. The 120 cubits of Herod he increased
to 240 cubits, or 360 feet, and has already carried the
building to two-thirds of that height, and it now
only wants 120 feet to complete it. In like manner, the
length of the Holy Place in Solomon’s as in Herod’s
Temple was 40 by 20 cubits. He made it 80 cubits
square, and, instead of the 40 cubits which, we learn
from Josephus and the Talmud, was the reputed height

of the Alijah, which his chamber was intended to
reproduce, he made it 160 cubits, or four times as much !
He did not, of course, dare to attempt to reproduce the
Holy of Holies, nor, as I understand it, the Holy Place.
His synagogue is an exaggerated Alijah, with dimensions
copied and multiplied from the Jerusalem Temple. As
such, it shows a knowledge of the subject that has
never been exhibited anywhere else. All this is com-
bined with a degree of artistic feeling very rare in
modern Italian architect's, and an amount of construc-
tive skill which, so far as I know, is unrivalled by
that to be found in any existing building in the whole
world.

These particulars are all obtained from a paper by
R. P. Pullan, communicated to the Architect, October 6,
1877, accompanied by plans, sections, and elevations.

148

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

restoration of this building. I am far from supposing that it is the only one that
can be proposed, but I feel certain that it is a solution that meets fairly all
conditions of the problem known to us, and as such it may, like other suggestions
offered in the preceding pages, be allowed to stand till at least a better is
brought forward.

If this is so, it is hardly worth while to point out certain exaggerations that
Josephus puts forward in describing the interior of the building ; as, for instance,
when he says that the doorway into the Holy Place was 55 cubits in height, and
that the vestibule, as just mentioned, was 90 cubits high internally.1 He seems,
as before pointed out, to have been possessed with the idea that the Holy Place
was 60 cubits high, and consequently a doorway 5 cubits less would not be
inappropriate and as the front was 100 cubits high externally, an internal
dimension of 90 cubits would or might be required. A German author of the
name of Unruh has taken them all literally, and protracted them to scale,2 and
such a reductio ad absurdum is quite sufficient to prove their impossibility even
if other evidence were not available for their correction. The difficulty is to
conceive the state of mind or of memory in a man like Josephus who knew
the building, and could write down things he must have known were incorrect.
It is true the building was destroyed when he wrote, and no one could prove
he was wrong, and he may have thought that simple but consistent exaggera-
tions in height were more likely to impress his readers with the magnificence of
the building than the enumeration of a number of small and complex parts.
Whatever the motive, this at least seems clear, either it is that he is hopelessly
wrong in his statements of internal dimensions, or we are utterly incapable of
forming any opinion as to what the internal arrangements of the Temple were ;
and if it is decided that Josephus must be right, I, for one at least, withdraw
from the contest.

Turning meanwhile from these inconceivable dimensions, it is pleasant to
find the Middoth describing the door of the Temple as 20 cubits in height by 10
cubits in width, and with a smaller door or wicket on each side, one of which was
permanently closed, the other in ordinary use. This is so exactly what we would
expect that it may be adopted without hesitation. I have restored the central
doorway with a semicircular lunette over it, as such would be useful for
lighting the interior, and is a feature commonly introduced in buildings of
that age or of times slightly subsequent to the building of the Temple.3 An
illustration of one from the synagogue at Kefr Beirim is given farther on. It is
appropriate, not only as belonging to a Jewish building, but as having the vine
sculptured on the lintel, which could only be a reminiscence of the golden vine of
the Temple described in the next section.

2 Das alte Jerusalem und seine Bauwerke, by Gustav Unruh ; Langensalza, 1861.

3 De Vogiid, Syrie Centrale, pi. 9, 21, 23. 65, 69, 123, 132, 111, &c.

1 B. J. v. 5, 4.

Chap. VIII.

FACADE.

149

I have also introduced a solid floor in the vestibule on the level of the
floor of the upper chamber, thoug’li there is no direct authority for it, and
perhaps an open internal gallery may have been employed instead. It seems to
me, however, that it would be paying the architects of Herod’s Temple a very
bad compliment to suppose that, having been called upon — as, I believe, they
certainly were — to provide an upper chamber and stairs leading to it in one
or both of the wing towers, they could not provide convenient and dignified
access to it, and one that would be consonant with commonsense and archi-
tectural propriety. Above this, I have introduced a solid vault, because, if I am
correct in assuming that it was in the open gallery, above this, that the priests
took refuge while the Temple was burning, and found shelter after it was
burnt (as pointed out above, page 138), it is clear that it must have been
practically fireproof; and this would necessitate the arrangements shown in the
section, Plate IV., or something at least very similar.

As hinted above, I look on it as nearly certain that Josephus considered
Solomon’s Temple as practically identical with Herod’s, and that nine-tenths of
what he says of the older applies in reality to the more modern structure. There
may have been — I believe were — upper chambers in both, but his knowledge of
the means of access and the arrangements he describes in his 8th book — which
have been already commented upon in speaking of Solomon’s Temple — were all
derived from the Temple which he knew, not from that one he never saw. It
is to this one, consequently, that all there said, ought in strictness to be applied ;
the one essential difference being that in Solomon’s Temple, owing to the more
confined space, the ascent must have been wholly by steps ; in Herod’s, on the
other hand, it must have been by an inclined plane up to the level of the gallery
of the third storey of little chambers. Above this, the ascent probably was by
stairs, but these would have been of appropriate dignity and easily lighted.
When this defect of critical acumen on Josephus’ part is borne in mind, and his
manifest exaggeration put on one side, it appears to me to result from his
description that the Temple must have been arranged as conveniently and
appropriately, in the interior, as it was magnificent on its exterior face, and
altogether made up such an edifice as to justify all that has been, or could be,
said in its praise.

It would be tedious, as well as unprofitable, to attempt to follow the
Rabbis in all their minute specifications for the storing and keeping of the sacred
utensils to be used in the services of the Temple, though, where there is so much
room to spare, it would be easy to do so, if worth while, and to a certain extent
it is done, in the restoration now proposed. I have, for instance, provided a
room, 10 feet square, in what may be called the newel of the northern staircase,
which is ample for the storage of the twenty-four sets of butchering instruments
used in the twenty-four courses. There is also abundant space for the ninety-six

150

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

closets in which the various garments of the priests were kept,1 in the two ranges
of low buildings which, I believe, extended from the projecting wings of the
fagade to the wall of the court towards the west. These would serve not only
for the convenience of the priests residing in the Temple, but also as a
barrier to the “ separate place,” to prevent the laity from approaching too
near to the holy house itself. The towers themselves, and probably the porch,
as things added in Herod’s time, may not have been considered so sacred as
to be defiled by the touch of the men of Israel. But the Temple itself was
accessible only to priests and Levites, and must have been protected by some
such arrangement as this from the contact of the laity.

Although there is practically so little in the New Testament that assists us
much in our attempts to understand the structure of the Temple, there is one
passage that occurs in two Gospels2 which seems only explicable on some such
theory of restoration as that now proposed. After taking Christ to “a high
mountain,” it is narrated that Satan “ setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,”
and defied him to cast himself down therefrom. It may of course be argued that
the expression is merely figurative, but it is just such an incident as no one
acquainted with Jerusalem would have imagined, had not the pinnacle of the
Temple been an unusually high place, and consequently appropriate for such a
temptation scene. It may also be remarked that, as an indefinite article is
employed, the fair inference is, that there was more than one pinnacle, though
it is difficult to imagine how there could be more than two. This restoration,
therefore, seems to suit the incident with as much exactness as is compatible
with the vagueness of such an indication.

1 Middoth iv. 7 ; Lightfoot’s Prospect of the Temple, p. 274.

2 Matthew iv. 5 ; Luke iv. 9.

Chap. IX.

THE TORAH.

151

CHAPTER IX.

THE TOBAN.

There still remains one feature of this facade to be described, and though it
is an important one, neither did I nor apparently anyone else suspect its exist-
ence till quite recently. I have already alluded to it under the Indian name
of Toran, as that is the name by which such structures are distinguished in
the East. They are not, however, known in the West, and we consequently have
no European term we can apply to them.

The passages in Josephus and the Talmud describing this feature are the
following : — “ The Temple had doors at the entrance with lintels above, extending
to a height equal to that of the Temple. They were adorned with coloured veils
or curtains, on which purple flowers with trellis work were embroidered. Upon
this, but lower than the crowning moulding of the wall, a golden vine was spread
out, with its branches hanging down from a great height, and executed with such
a profusion of material as to strike the spectator with astonishment as well from
the art displayed as from its magnitude.” 1

The corresponding paragraph in the ‘Wars of the Jews’ is as follows : — “ The
first gate of the Temple was 70 cubits high by 25 broad,2 but this gate had no
doors, for it symbolised the heavens, everywhere open and everywhere visible.
Its front was covered with gold all over, and through it the first part of the house
itself, which was the largest, was everywhere visible ; as well as those parts about
the inner doors which were also covered with gold .... But the gate of
this Temple, as already mentioned, was all covered with gold, as was the whole
wall about it. It also had golden vines upon it, from which clusters of grapes
hung down, equal in height to that of a man.” 3

These passages are too rhetorical for the purposes of a restoration, and the
heights, as usual with Josephus, are very much exaggerated. The Talmud is, in
this instance at least, more exact and detailed. Its description is as follows : —
“ The gates of the propylon were 40 cubits in height and 20 cubits broad, and
above these were five richly carved beams of ash or oak. The lowest of these
extended 1 cubit either way beyond the pillars of the doorway, while the one
next above this was 1 cubit longer either way than that below it, so that the

1 Antiquities of the Jews, xv. 3.

2 Both these numbers seem duplications of those given in 1 Kings vii. 15 and 2 Chron. iii. 15.

3 Bell. Jud. v. 5, 4.

152

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Paet II.

upper beam of all extended to 30 cubits. Between each beam there was a row,
or course of stones/’

“ Transverse beams [ melathra ] of cedar” (in the Venetian edition of the
Talmud it is said “of stone”) “were carried from the wall of the Temple to this
portico or propylon to support it” — literally, that it might not start from the
perpendicular. “ Golden chains were hung to the beams of the portico, by
which the candidates for the priesthood went up to see the crowns, because it is
said by Zechariah, vi. 14, ‘ And the crowns shall be to Helem,’ &c. ‘ for a
memorial in the temple of the Lord.’ ”

“ A golden vine was spread over this gateway of the Temple, and was
carried upon the supporting beams. Whoever vowed a leaf, or grape, or bunch
of grapes, brought and suspended it from it (the vine). Eliezer, the son of Zadok,
says, it thus happened the 300 priests were told off as necessary on occasions
when it had to be removed.” 1

It was only when trying to realise the meaning of these passages, and their
application to the facade of the Temple, that I became aware that a gate (Trvkrj)
with no doors (Ovpa ?), but through which the front part of the Temple could
be seen, and which “ symbolised the heavens everywhere open, and visible ” was
not an entrance to the interior of the building ; and the more it is studied, the
more it becomes evident that it was no part of the structure of the Temple.
Even then, it would have been difficult to give shape to the description, were it
not that, of late years, we have become familiar with a form of propylon used
in the East for the last 2000 years at least, and still existing everywhere in
China and Japan.2 The four examples at Sanchi, erected in the first century of
the Christian era, have been described in detail in my ‘ Tree and Serpent
Worship,’ and their similarity to this pointed out in an appendix to that work.
One of these is represented in the woodcut opposite, and, though perhaps not
the one that might be selected as most like the Jerusalem example, is sufficiently
near it for purposes of illustration. It is also curious as being in a great

measure devoted to tree worship, the central bar being
wholly devoted to it ; the upper has alternately trees and
dagobas. Whether this has or has not any affinity with
the honour paid to the Vine at Jerusalem is a question
others must determine ; it is hardly worth while attempting
to discuss it here.

That such forms were not unknown in the West
seems evident from many Greek coins representing the
temple of Venus in Cyprus, which was adorned by a pylon
so like those at Sanchi that, making allowance for the necessary imperfection of
numismatic representations, it is hardly possible to mistake their being intended

1 Middoth iii. 7, 8.

2 Vide ante, page 126, for Japanese example.

Chap. IX.

THE TORAN.

155

for the same object. Those at Sanchi and elsewhere in India are wholly in stone,
though evidently, like the Lycian tombs, copied fiom wooden originals. dhe
Cyprian example looks almost as wooden as the Pailoos of China, but the example

34. — Vine-bearing Toran in Front op Herod’s Temple.

at Jerusalem was apparently partly in wood and partly in stone. The pillars
were almost certainly in the latter material ; but the beams were in wood, and it
is not clear from our authorities whether the buttresses and transverse beams

156

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

supporting it, and joining it to the fac^ade, were in the one material or the other.
It makes no difference in the design nor in the application, whichever they were ;
so this question may he left for future enquiry. What we now want to know
is what was the form of this screen, and if we may trust the Talmud or our
Eastern analogies, it does not seem it can be very different from that here
rejwesented, and its purpose certainly was to support the golden vine, which
was the principal ornament of the fa9ade. Why this was so is by no means
clear. It may have been, as Dean Stanley expresses it, that “ the vine
was the earliest and the latest symbol of Judah,'’ and “both in prophetical
and evangelical records represents the kingdom of that name.” 1 Whether
this was so or not, it was with an earlier example of the same emblem
that Aristobulus sought to purchase the friendship of Pompey. The one he
presented to him was valued at five hundred talents, and was apparently torn
from the Temple of the Jews, to be deposited in that of Jupiter Capitolinus
at Pome, where it was seen, long afterwards, by Strabo of Cappadocia, with an
inscription to the effect that it was presented by the king of the Jews.2 Its
successor is described by Tacitus as so important a feature as to induce some
to believe that the Temple at Jerusalem was dedicated to Bacchus.3

The argument in favour of the existence of this curious screen that will,
probably, have most weight with the majority of readers is that, if this did not
exist as here represented, there is nothing in Herod’s Temple any way analogous
to the Jachin and Boaz of Solomon’s. These two pillars seem to have been
so important a feature in the early Temple that it is extremely difficult to
believe some attempt would not be made to reproduce them in the new ; yet
without this screen, with its vine, there is absolutely no analogue for the pillars
with their pomegranates and other ornaments. It is unfortunately only too
true that, though hundreds have wasted both time and ingenuity upon them, no
one has succeeded in producing a restoration of these two celebrated pillars
that is generally acceptable. In speaking of Solomon’s Temple, I have above
attempted to explain that it seems absurd to suppose that they were merely
pillars of bronze set up like Egyptian obelisks in front of the temples of that
country. Such a supposition is to misunderstand the use of the Egyptian
examples, and to defy analogy. No such pillars of bronze existed anywhere
else that we know of, with their enormously exaggerated capitals, and par-
ticularly with their superabundant ornaments, which it seems impossible to
crowd into the space allotted to them.

If, however, we may assume that, from the description of this vine-bearing
screen, in Josephus and the Talmud, compared with our Indian examples, we

1 Sinai and Palestine, p. 164.

2 Josephus, Ant. xiv. 3, 1.

3 “ Vitisque aurea templo reperta Liberum patrem

coli, domitorem orientis, quidem arbitrati sunt.” Tacitus
Hist. v. 5 ; Plutarch, 1. iv. Sympos.

Chap. IX.

THE TORAN.

157

have realised even approximately the form of the Toran, we may now be in
a position to attain clearer ideas of the pillars cast by Hiram than has hitherto
been possible. At all events, the subject is so interesting that it is worth
while making the attempt ; and though I am far from flattering myself that
I have been successful, I beg leave to submit the diagram below as, at least,
a partial solution of some of its mysteries.

The first difficulty that arises in trying to do this is the disproportionate
massiveness of these two pillars for work in metal. If a line of 12 cubits

35. — Rough Diagram explanatory of the Screen supported by the Pillars of Jachin and Boaz in

Front of Solomon’s Temple.

really encompassed “either of them about,”1 their height being 18 cubits,
this would give a proportion of only 4^ diameters, or nearly that of the
pillars of the Parthenon, which, though perfectly appropriate in stonework,
would be absurd in metal. Josephus says 12 dactyles2 (SaKTvXcov), and the
Septuagint has 14 cubits, showing that there is at least some uncertainty in
the matter. My own impression is that what was meant was that a line of
12 or 14 cubits, stretched across, encompassed both pillars, as one of 20 cubits did
that of their copies in Herod’s Temple. This, at least, would be a pleasing and

1 Kings vii. 15.

2 Ant. viii. 3, 4.

158

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Paet II-

proper proportion, though whether it is what the Bible meant is by no means
so dear.

From a second description in the Book of Kings, we learn that the capitals
were of “ three cubits 1 but all our authorities are agreed that the chapiters
were of 5 cubits in height, and that they were adorned with wreaths and chains
and network and pomegranates 400 in number ; and the difficulty has been to
find room for all these things on a capital 5 cubits high, by, say, 12 cubits in
circumference, and, more than this, to find anything at all analogous to this in
any art or any architecture of the world. I quite admit that this is what, not
only the Book of Kings 2 and Chronicles,3 hut also the allusion to this feature
in Jeremiah,4 would lead us to suppose they intended to express, and there is
nothing in Josephus to contradict it ; 5 all I would urge is that, if it is so, the
problem appears to me to he insoluble. If, however, we may assume that the
two chapiters of 5 cubits each, which were placed on the pillars, were beams or
frames of bronze extending from one to the other, as in the vine-hearing trellis
of Herod’s Temple, the whole becomes clear and intelligible. To bring this,
however, into accord with our texts, it would be necessary that all those
expressions which mean “ round about ” in speaking of the chapiters should be
either annulled or modified ; and more than this, it would be necessary to assume
that some at least of the descriptions were written by persons who had no
personal knowledge or no distinct idea of the object they were describing. This
is so large a demand on the tolerance of enquiry that I hardly care to argue it,
and merely put it forward as a suggestion to be taken for what it is worth. It
may, consequently, suffice briefly to state what I believe the form of the
monument to have been, leaving it to others to reject or adopt my views as they
think best. My impression is that the frontispiece prepared by Hiram for
Solomon’s Temple consisted of two pillars of bronze placed 12 or 14 cubits apart,
and probably not more than 1 cubit in diameter. They had capitals 3 cubits in
height, and on them were placed two beams or frames of bronze each 5 cubits in
height. The Septuagint calls them eVi^quara, which cannot by any means
be construed as capitals, but the term may very reasonably be applied
to such a beam as is here suggested. These were apparently separated from
one another by a transverse beam or buttress extending back 4 cubits to the
porch, as was the case in Herod’s Temple, to support the framework where
most needed. The word employed in the Septuagint (peXaOpov) is translated,
in our best lexicons, as “ a beam projecting from the wall of a house.”
Generally, it must be admitted as the support of a roof or projecting cornice,
but it is as applicable for the use here suggested. It is stated to have been
adorned with “ lily work,” which I presume may mean, with a honeysuckle

1 2 Kings xxv. 17. 2 1 Kings vii. 15-21. 3 2 Chron. iii. 15-17.

4 Jeremiah lii. 21. 5 Ant. viii. 3, 4.

Chap. IX.

THE TORAN.

159

ornament carved upon it, in contradistinction to the net and pensile work of
the epithemata. It is, of course, arbitrary to assume that, because this
melatliron was 4 cubits long, it must have been equal to that in height. I am
inclined to this, however, because these measures together make up 35 cubits,
which looks very like as if the writer in the Chronicles had adopted the whole
height of that screen for the height of the pillars only.1

The first great advantage we obtain from the scheme just suggested is,
that we obtain abundant space for “ network,” and “ chains,” and “ pensile
work,” either on the epithemata, or hanging from them, and also for the four
hundred pomegranates in four rows, which were the principal ornaments in
Solomon’s, as the vine was in Herod’s, Temple. Even then, however, when
drawn out to scale, it is extremely difficult to find room for more than twenty-
four or twenty-five pomegranates in a row, even on an epithema 20 cubits
long, if of the proper size, to he effective at that distance from the eye, and
if properly spaced for ornamental purposes. I consequently believe that they
hung behind as well as before — “round about the chapiters,” in fact — and
probably twenty-four in each row, ninety-six in each epithema, as mentioned
by Jeremiah. There may also have been two at each end.

I am far from contending that this suggestion removes all the difficulties
connected with this celebrated work of Hiram’s, but it seems to me to be
nearer the true solution than any other I am acquainted with. It is hardly,
however, worth while pursuing the subject further at this stage of the
enquiry, as without more knowledge of Hebrew than I possess, or without the
assistance of some scholar competent to supply my deficiencies, it is impossible
for any one to feel sure that he knows all the conditions of the problem he
is trying to solve. It may, therefore, be as well to leave it till others have
expressed their opinions regarding it, when it may be taken up again and
treated as a separate subject.2 One great difficulty for its general acceptance
is, no doubt, that the form so proposed is even less familiar to the general
public than the obeliscal one usually suggested ; but any one who has been in
the East, and knows how frequent these torans are in front ol the doorways
of temples from India to Japan, would rather look for, and expect to find,
something of the sort at Jerusalem, and feel disappointed if any other form
were adopted. My own impression certainly is that in Solomon's Temple
Jaehin and Boaz supported a screen with two beams or epithemata, but there

1 It is not a little curious, as well as significant, that
Josephus makes the whole height of the vine-bearing
screen 70 cub.ts (B. J. v. 5, 4), or just twice the
thirty-five cubi-s of the Book of Chronicles. To me
this appears the strongest testimony we have of the
correctness of the dimensions there given.

2 I have drawn out this Jaehin and Boaz screen to
scale for my own satisfaction, and with such orna-

mentation as seems to me appropriate and sufficient
to make the foundation of a very beautiful work of
art in metal work. I do not, however, feel so con-
fident in the correctness of my principles as to think
it worth while publishing it, and prefer leaving it
in the state of the rude diagram shown in woodcut
No. 35, till it is seen how far scholars will assent to
its theory.

160

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

I must leave it. It is not essential to our restoration, and it is not necessary
or expedient to press wliat avowedly cannot be proved.

As regards Herod’s Temple, however, I feel very little doubt but that the
woodcut No. 34 1 fairly represents the form the screen took as erected about
the time of the Christian era ; in the first place, because I do not think that
the passages above quoted from Josephus and the Middoth can bear any other
interpretation than that I have pat upon them, and also because the form
was so common in the East at that time that I see no a priori improbability
in its being adopted by Herod, even if nothing of an exactly similar nature
had existed in the previous Temples.

The oldest example now known to exist in the East is that at Bharhut, not
yet published,2 but known to be at least two centuries older than the Jerusalem
example. It is wholly in stone. So also are the four at Sanchi, which all
belong to the first century of our era ; 3 while the representations of them, both
at Sanchi and Amravati, are so frequent that their employment may be said to
be universal ; but generally, apparently, they were in wood. Some years ago
this could hardly have been employed as an argument, but recent discoveries —
especially in architecture — have shown the communications between the East and
the West to have been so much more frequent, and intimate, than was previously
suspected, as to remove all taint of improbability from the argument, even if
they are not sufficient to show that it must or might have been so. Perhaps
when others come to investigate the subject, some new light may be thrown on
the matter ; but meanwhile it is a new and interesting feature added to our
history of the architecture of the Temple, and one that seems likely, when
properly investigated, to throw a flood of light on the mystery of the Jachin
and Boaz pillars, as also on various problems involved in the mutual influence
on one another of Eastern and Western architectural art.

1 In order to show the construction, the golden leaves
have been omitted from this diagram, as well as from

Plates III. and IV. They are partially introduced in
the perspective view, forming the frontispiece, and, if

the scale were large enough, ought to be introduced

everywhere, as they. were the principal ornaments of
the composition.

2 Partially illustrated by me, in my History of Indian
Architecture, p. 88, woodcut 27.

3 Tree and Serpent Worship, pp. 99 et seq.

Chap. X.

ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS.

161

CHAPTER X.

ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS.

Tombs.

In addition to the buildings above alluded to as illustrating the style of
architecture in which the Temple of Herod was built, there are several others
in Judfea well worthy of attentive study, as bearing on the same subject. None,
of course, can bear so directly upon it as the vestibule of the Huldah Gateway,
which was part of the Temple itself, or as the monoliths of the valley of
Jehoshaphat, as these were connected with it in some mysterious way, or as
the Temple of Baalsamin, which is a contemporary copy of it on a small scale.
Besides these, however, we have in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem numerous
tombs which are certainly not earlier than Herod’s time, nor later than the age
of Titus, and all which have features which enable us to understand, to some
extent at least, the architecture of the first century in and about Jerusalem.

Of these, one of the most remarkable is the Herodium, or, as it is generally
called, “ the Tombs of the Kings,” on the north of the city. Josephus mentions
it once as “ the monuments of Herod,” 1 a second time, with the same name in the
singular,2 and a third time, as the “ sepulchral caverns of the kings,” 3 by which
name it is now known. That it was excavated by Herod would probably never
have been doubted, had not Josephus’ account of his funeral been obscure and
contradictory to a greater extent than is usual even with him. Herod, he says,
died at Jericho,4 and in the ‘ Wars of the Jews,’ it is said “ they carried his
body 200 stadia to the Herodium, and there buried him,” 5 while in the
‘ Antiquities,’ on the other hand, it is stated, “ they went 8 stadia to the
Herodium, and there, by his own command, buried him.” 6 The usual mode
of reconciling these differences is to assume that the Herodium in the first
passage applies to the Jebel Fureidis, which also bore that name, but which
never — so far as I know — was a sepulchre or intended for one. For the second,

1 B. J. V. 3, 2.

2 B. J. v. 12, 2.

3 B. J. v. 4, 2.

4 There can be no doubt that the statement of

Josephus is, that Herod died at Jericho, hut the men-

tion of the Hippodrome, the presence of the nobles and
of all the parties concerned, in fact all the circum-

stances connected with his last illness, would lead to
the supposition that he died at Jerusalem. I cannot
help fancying that the true solution is, that the historian
either forgot or omitted to mention that he had been
removed there before his death.

6 B. J. i. 33, 9.

6 Ant. xvii. 8, 3.

162

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

it is assumed they marched 8 furlongs, or one mile, per day, for twenty-five
days, till they reached the place, for which hypothesis there is, however, no
shadow of authority, so far as I can see, while it is in itself a most improbable
rate of locomotion. The distance of Jerusalem from Jericho is 12 miles, or 96
stadia, as the crow flies, from Jebel Fureidis 15 miles, or 120 stadia, so that
neither of these will make up the 200 stadia required ; so there is little to choose
between them. The real solution, I believe, lies in adhering to the account in
the ‘ Antiquities,’ and assuming that after his death his body was brought to
Jerusalem, and after lying in state, the procession which Josephus describes
was formed there, and marched 8 stadia from the Palace in the city to the
Tombs of the Kings, this being the exact distance on the Ordnance Survey.

Against this view, it must not be forgotten that in the fourth century the
tradition had got blurred, and that both Eusebius1 and Jerome2 considered these
caves as the celebrated Tombs of Helena of Adiabene. These, however, were
certainly structural pyramids,3 probably, in form like the so-called Tomb of
Zacharias, represented in woodcut No. 29, and were at a greater distance
from Jerusalem than these caverns;4 while it need hardly be added that a
memory being obscured, or a tradition altered, in three centuries, is the rule
rather than the exception at Jerusalem.

This may be considered a digression, but hardly an irrelevant one, for these
sepulchral caverns of the kings form a landmark of the utmost value in the
history of the architecture of Jerusalem so that it is most important to fix their
date if possible, while it does not appear to me doubtful that they were
excavated by Herod for the burialplace of his family and himself. Even if
the historical incidents just alluded to did not suffice for this purpose, the
architectural features would, I conceive, prove it beyond doubt. Their archi-
tectural arrangements are the same as those of the Tomb of St. James, in
the valley of Jehoshaphat (woodcut No. 30), the order being the same debased
Roman Doric prevalent in Syria about the Christian era. The facade of the
Herodium, however, is overloaded with ornaments to a greater extent than
anv other I am acquainted with, and must, before it was ruined, have been
a wonderful example of barbaric splendour.

It was in this tomb that De Saulcy found the sarcophagus which is now in
the Louvre, and which he so strangely mistook for that of one of the early
kings of Judah. If the theory just enunciated, that this was the Herodian
familv sepulchre, is correct, it hardly admits of doubt that it was fashioned by
Herod to contain his own remains. At the same time, its ornamentation is so
nearly identical with that of the roof of the vestibule of the Huldah Gate
of the Temple that, with those of the fai^ade of the tomb, they together make

1 Hist. Eccl. ii. 12.

2 Epit. ad Eustach. ix. 1, describing the journey of Sta. Paula.

3 Ant. xx. 4, 3. 4 Ant. xx. 4, 3.

CHAP. X.

ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS.

163

up a mass of material for restoring the fat^ade of the Temple which will nearly
suffice when properly reproduced. In all, it need hardly be repeated, the vine
and bunches of grapes form the staple of the decoration.1

36. — Portion of the Lid of Herod’s Sarcophagus. (From a drawing by De Saulcy.)2

The so-called Tombs of the Judges are of a slightly more modern date,
but still anterior to the destruction of the city by Titus. The ornament
there consists principally of a singularly sharp, spicated acanthus leaf, common
in these parts down to the time of Constantine, indeed till the employment
of classical architecture ceased altogether. A similar style of decoration is
found on a frontispiece above a doorway behind the Pillar of Absalom, which

1 The same wreath of olive leaves that forms the
principal ornament of this sarcophagus occurs in almost
all the copper coins of the Asmonean period. The

annexed illustration is from one of Judas Maccabieus,
but it occurs also on those of Hyrcanus and others.
See article “Money,” in Smith’s Dictionary of the

37. — Copper Coin of Judas Maccabeus.

Bible, from which the woodcut is borrowed.

2 This beautiful sarcophagus is now in the Palestine
Chamber, in the Louvre, but, strange to say, thrust into

a dark corner, where it can with difficulty be found, or
seen when discovered ; the place of honour, in the centre,
being assigned to one of far inferior importance.

164

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

is consequently more modern than the pillar itself. It leads to a group of
chambers called the Tomb of Jehoshaphat, which is certainly not a tomb,
but more probably a rock-cut vihara, or monastery — so at least it would be
called in India ; here it may have been the residence of an anchorite. In all

38. — Doorway op Tombs op Judges. 39.— Entrance to Tomb near Jerusalem.

(From a photograph.) (From Salzmann.)

these examples, indeed in all the rock-cut tombs of this age around Jerusalem,
the most marked peculiarity is a tendency to exaggerate the height of the
tympana. In some cases they nearly approach to the height of an equilateral
triangle, but do not, so far as I know, ever quite reach that form. They do
so, however, sufficiently nearly to diminish considerably the improbability that
the Temple had a roof of such a section.

Synagogues.

Another fruitful source of hints for the restoration of the Temple , at
Jerusalem may be found among the synagogues of Northern Syria — the
Tiberiad — or rather will be found when they have been properly surveyed and
their details published. At present our knowledge of them is confined to a
short paper of half-a-dozen pages with one plate, inserted in 1869 by Captain
(now Major) Wilson in the Second Quarterly Report of the Palestine
Exploration Fund; and this, though clear and accurate, like everything done
by him, is not, even with the photographs that accompany it, sufficient to
enable us to understand them, if, indeed, they can be understood at all ; but
they are generally so ruined that even this is doubtful.1

1 As all the statements made regarding these synagogues are based on this short paper, it will not be necessary
to refer to it each time it is mentioned.

Chap. X.

ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS.

165

Their first and most striking peculiarity is the number of pillars that
crowd their floors. With one exception, the nine which Major Wilson
examined were divided into five aisles by four rows of pillars like that at Tell
Hum (Capernaum), shown in the annexed woodcut ; and this, too, though its
internal dimensions were only 74 feet 9 inches by 56 feet 9 inches. Another
peculiarity is that the centre aisle is the narrowest — under 7 feet clear — the
next a little wider, the outer 11 feet 6 inches. Such an arrangement seems
so utterly unsuited to any congregational or ceremonial purposes, that there

O 25 50 Ft

- 1 i

40.— Synagogue at Tell Hum. (By Major Wilson.)

must have been some other cause for it ; and the only one that occurs to me
is that what we have here is only the lower storey of a building of which the
upper chamber was really the ceremonial or meeting room. It seems absurd
to suppose that in a country where they could construct the roof of a Stoa
Basilica 105 feet in width, with only two rows of internal pillars, making
three aisles, it would have required four rows and five aisles for the roof of
a room only 56 feet wide. The objection to this theory, of course, is that no
trace of a staircase has been found anywhere, but this, in their generally

166

THE TEMPLE OF HEKOD.

Part II.

ruined state, is liardly to be wondered at. Two of them, however — Meiron
and Irbid — seem to be notched out of the hillside, as if for the purpose of
giving access to their roofs or upper storeys from the outside, and at Tell
Hum, as shown in the plan, there is an annex, in which the staircase may
have been accommodated.

The exceptional synagogue above alluded to is the smaller one at Kefr
Beirim, which, being only 35 feet 6 inches in width internally, had only two
rows of pillars in its interior, dividing it into three aisles.

It would of course be absurd to argue that these synagogues were literal
copies, in any sense, of the Temple. But the places of worship of the same
people, and some at least of them — that at Capernaum, for instance — being
probably contemporary, there must have existed similarities which would throw
light on the peculiarities of the others, were either ascertainable. If there
was an upper room to the Temple, which seems proved from what has been
said above, there is no improbability that a similar apartment existed in the
synagogues ; or, on the other hand, if it could be demonstrated that the
synagogues had such an upper room, it would be another and a strong
argument in favour of the upper chamber said to have existed in the Temple.
The presence also of such a number of pillars on the floors of the synagogues
invalidates all reasoning based on the fact of the improbability of their
existence on the floor of the Temple, where they can he shown to have been
indispensable for constructive purposes.

In trying to understand the relation between the two classes of buildings, it
must also be borne in mind, as before mentioned, that the lower storey of the
Temple was not used for any great ceremonial or congregational purposes or
worship, in the sense in which we understand these terms. The Holy of Holies
was only entered by the most privileged priests on the rarest possible
occasions and the Holy Place was used more for the deposit of the Table of
Shewbread, the Golden Candlesticks, and all the wonderful articles of furniture
which Hiram cast for Solomon, which, no doubt, had their representatives in
Herod’s Temple. The reading of the Law, the putting up of prayer, the
chanting of the Psalms, if these took place at all except in the open air, must,
as before suggested, have taken place in this upper room of the Temple. This
may have been the case also in the synagogue, and its lower floor may have
been occupied by some passive form of worship or by offerings; for which
the crowded state of the floor, from the number of pillars, would not have
been objectionable.1

1 It may of course be suggested that this took place
in the court of the Temple, and in the open air. rIhat
occasional services or great festivals took place there, is,
1 believe, quite certain, but I cannot believe that in
such a climate as that of Jerusalem the ordinary daily

services could have been performed out of doors.
Neither Christian nor Moslem have found such a
practice feasible, nor do I believe the Jews could have
done so either.

Chap. X.

ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS.

167

The synagogues are generally so ruined, most of them completely thrown
down, that they do not afford us much assistance in restoring the external
architecture of the Temple. There is, however, a doorway in the larger
synagogue of Kefr Beirim which is so exactly, mutatis mutandis , what I believe
the doorway of the Temple to have been that it is worth quoting. It is more
modern, of course, but how much, it is impossible to say, from the information
available ; but its mouldings are so classical that it may easily belong to the-
first century of our era. On its lintel, on either side of an open flower, two
lambs were sculptured, apparently intended for the Paschal lambs, but which a

41. — Doorway of Synagogue at Kefr Beirim. (From a photograph.)

stricter sect have afterwards attempted to erase. Above this is the inevitable
vine with its bunches of grapes, and over that the discharging arch, which is so
common in Syria at this age. The vine with its grapes occurs also at Tell Hum.
and probably elsewhere, but lying buried in the ruins of the building it once
adorned.

Among the ruins of the synagogue at Kerazeh (Chorazin) are found the
fragments of several niche heads, not in themselves of any remarkable beauty,
but of great interest to us here, as their design and the style of their ornaments
are — allowing for their being slightly more modern — almost identical with the

168

THE TEMPLE OF HEKOD.

Part II.

ornaments of one of the domes in the roof of the vestibule of the gate Huldah of
the Temple (woodcut No. 18). The wreath of olive leaves occurs also round
the base of this niche, though more coarsely executed than that round the other
dome of the Huldah Grateway (woodcut No. 19), or than that shown on Herod’s
sarcophagus (woodcut No. 36), but still unmistakably the same. As there is no
mistake about the synagogue being after the Christian era, all this is sufficient
to prove — if proof were wanted — that that gateway did not belong to Solomon’s,

42. — Ruined Niche in Synagogue at Choeazin. (From a photograph.)

as De Saulcy and others have supposed, hut to Herod’s Temple. A still more
apposite and perfect illustration of this class of decoration is found in the apse
of the prgetorium at Mousmieh, which De Yoglie ascertained was erected 160-169
a.d.1 From photographs, it appears that it has in its details considerable
resemblances with those of the Huldah vaults, but the Chorazin niche, though
much more coarsely executed, and therefore, probably, much more modern,
shows more distinct evidence of being a direct cojiy of those in Jerusalem.

Palaces.

The palace at Mashita near Hesbon is the last building 1 shall have occasion
to mention before leaving this branch of the subject. The date (614-627) 2 is
much too modern, of course, for it to have any direct reference to the Temple

1 Syrie Centrale, pi. 7, p. 45.

2 I have already published what I have to say about
this date, and generally about this building, in an
appendix to Dr. Tristram’s Land of Moab, pp. 367-385,

together with a restoration of it as the frontispiece to
that work ; it is therefore unnecessary to go over the
argument again. The reader who desires further infor-
mation regarding it can refer to Dr. Tristram’s work.

Chap. X.

ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS.

169

at Jerusalem, but it worthily closes a chapter of architectural history of which
that celebrated building was the first example, and this the last ; and it is

43. — Compartment of Western Octagon Towep. of the Persian Palace at Mashita.

only by putting the whole together, and reading it from the beginning to

the end, that we can fully understand

1 This style is so distinct in itself that it would be
extremely convenient if any one could invent a name
to distinguish it clearly from other styles without being
pedantic. I should like to call it “ vine architecture,”

its meaning.1

from its most marked characteristic; but vine is not
an adjective, and “ vitic ” or “ vinous ” would not only
be wrong, but ridiculous ; so I must leave the task to
others. “ Ampellic” would be unintelligible.

170

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

The principal motivo of the decoration of the palace at Mashita is a series
of triangular pediments extending across the whole front. These are all
equilateral in form, and the two sloping sides are adorned by quasi-cornices
of acanthus leaves, evidently a reminiscence of a classical form, but far
removed, as might be expected, from it in detail, the acanthus, especially,
having the sharp, spicated form found in Justinian’s time, but scarcely earlier.
These triangles are generally filled with sculptured ornaments of great beauty
and variety, but the principal ones, as shown in the woodcut, by vines
growing out of vases, and bearing a profusion of fruit. The treatment of the
vine here is full of vigorous conventionalism — very unlike the timid realism
of Herod’s Temple — and birds and beasts are introduced in a manner that
would shock an adherent of the Second Commandment ; but the changes are
not greater than might be expected from their difference in date. Many,
indeed, will be rather inclined to believe that any similarity that may exist
must be accidental, and that no such forms could be preserved by tradition
through so long a period of time. Yet architectural forms in true styles
change slowly, and if any one will only remember how like the Corinthian
order of the monument of Lysicrates at Athens, of the age of Alexander,
is to that of the capitals of Diocletian’s buildings at Spalatro, or to those of
Constantine, he will not feel surprise at any persistence of form in countries
maintaining a continuous civilisation.

Be this as it may, I feel convinced that between the time of Herod and
Chosroes there existed the tradition, if not the continuous practice, of a style of
tall-roofed, vine-adorned buildings, which eventually resulted in what now
appears to us the unique and exceptional ornamentation of the jialace at
Mashita. It is unfortunately only too probable that sufficient fragments do
not now remain to enable us to make out the story of the style in a
full and satisfactory manner ; but fragments do exist,1 and the subject is so
interesting that it is well worth while looking for them and trying to piece
them together.

It would be quite out of place to attempt such a monograph here, though, if
it were done, it would add a most interesting chapter to the general history of
architecture. All that is here wanted is to point out that there exist in Syria
a great many fragments of architectural art which, when gathered together,
enable us to realise the style in which the Temple of Jerusalem was adorned
when rebuilt by Herod. Others must judge how far they have been successfully
combined in the plates that accompany this restoration. It would not be
difficult to carry the elaboration of these details to a much greater extent than
lias been attempted at present; but till the main features of the restoration

1 A number of fragments, torn probably from a desecrated building in this style in Syria, now form the
principal adornment of the apse of the church of Murano near Venice.

Chap. X.

ARCHITECTURAL ILLUSTRATIONS.

171

are accepted, it is not only confusing, but a waste of labour, to spend time
on accessories. The internal fittings of the Temple were in all ages of wood,
and for these, of course, no illustrative examples now exist ; and I have,
consequently, been obliged to borrow from Persepolis the forms I fancy were
probably nearest in style. In the external design, however, no form has been
adopted for which an authority cannot be quoted among existing remains in
Syria, and they are put together so as to reproduce, as nearly as I can realise
them, from the description of Josephus and others, the form and appearance of
that once celebrated building ; with what measure of success, others must be
left to decide.

172

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

CHAPTER XI.

THE TOWER ANTONIA.

Notwithstanding recent explorations on the spot, the form and arrangement of
this important fortress of tire Temple still remain matters of more or less
uncertainty. The first step in the right direction was made by Major Wilson
in 1865, when lie discovered the arch bearing his name at a distance of about
600 feet from the south- west angle of the Haram area. This was afterwards
followed up by Captain Warren with his usual misdirected zeal and energy, and
resulted in the discovery of a series of vaulted chambers of various ages,
extending westward across the valley to about 260 feet from the Haram wall.
I cannot gather from his writings, that Captain Warren formed even a theory
as to what the vaults represented, or to what building they belonged ; but he
resolutely set his face against their being parts of the Antonia, because,
according to his views of the Temple, its fortress was situated 800 or 900 feet
farther north than these vaults. Having no clue to guide him, he seems
to have groped on from apartment to apartment, without knowing what to
look for, or understanding what he had found ; and, what is worse, his
discoveries are published only in so fragmentary and unscientific a manner
that it is extremely difficult to others to make any use of them,1 and I by
no means feel confident that I have in all instances rightly apprehended what
really was found on the spot. The great difficulty, however, in utilising these
researches is that in no instance did Captain Warren find — indeed, he does
not seem to have looked for — an external wall ; all, consequently, that he
discovered is a series of irregular chambers, sometimes in one, sometimes in
two storeys ; some ancient, others rebuilt in modern times, and certainly
connected with the Haram area, though at what spot and in what manner
remains to be determined. The one point that seems perfectly certain is, that,
if my restoration of the Temple is correct, these must be the foundations of
buildings belonging to the fortress Antonia. Either all that is said above

1 Major Wilson informs me that he has found it
impossible to protract Captain Warren’s data in such
a manner as to make them agree with the Ordnance
Survey. The explanation of the discrepancy, as I
understand it, is that Captain Warren only jotted down
in a hurried manner his discoveries as he made them,

intending to go over the whole with the sappers, when
they were complete, and make a careful survey' of them.
On his return from Jericho, however, he found the
vaults closed by order of the pasha, and he was never
able afterwards to obtain access to them.

Chap. XI.

THE TOWER ANTONIA.

173

about the size and disposition of the Temple falls to the ground or the Antonia
stood where it is marked on the plan in the annexed woodcut, and included
all the ground on which these chambers are situated. It would, therefore, be
extremely interesting if the explorations were sufficiently complete to enable us
to restore them as they existed at the time when Pilate resided in this fortress ;
but nothing really depends on our being able to do so. It is sufficient for all
historical and topographical purposes to know that they belonged to the Antonia ;
their exact form is of comparatively little consequence, at present at least.

100

200

300 FI

44. — Plan op the Antonia according to Josephus.

In consequence of the failure of these explorations to afford us the information
requisite for a complete restoration, we are still left mainly to rely on Josephus
for what we know of the Antonia ; and as all, or nearly all, he says about it is
contained in one short chapter,1 it may add to the clearness of what follows if we
make a short abstract of it.

“ The Antonia is situated at that angle of the Temple where the northern
and western porticos of the outer Temple meet. It stands on a rock 50 cubits in
height, and everywhere steep. This rock, however ” — he goes on to explain — “ was

1 B. J. v. 5, 8.

174

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

everywhere cased in stone, not only for ornament, but to render it more defensible.
On this rock or terrace there was a wall or parapet 3 cubits in height, within
which the area of the Antonia was covered with buildings 40 cubits in height
internally, having the form and grandeur of a palace. This was again subdivided
into rooms and all manner of conveniences, such as courts, baths, spacious
barracks, and all the things that were necessary or useful for cities, but having
the appearance of a palace. Besides the central block, there were four towers at
the four angles, three of which were 50 cubits in height, but that at the south*
eastern angle, where it joined the porticos of the Temple, was 70 cubits high, and
had passages leading down to these porticos by which the Roman garrison that
always occupied the tower had at all times access to the Temple.”

For its dimensions we have nothing beyond the impression we gain from the
above, except the expression that the Temple, with the Antonia, measured 6 stadia
in circumference,1 and consequently it must have been a quadrangular figure,
measuring from 300 to 400 feet on each face, according as it may be determined
how far the one building overlapped the other. We know from the incidents
of the war that it did not cover the whole of the northern face of the Temple,
because Titus erected banks there with the intention of storming the Temple long
before he had obtained possession of the Antonia ; 2 and the question is, Did
Josephus consider the Temple was a building, as he says, measuring 4 stadia, one
stadium on each side, and the Antonia one of 300 feet on each face, and add the
two together as making 6 stadia, or did he allow for the overlap and measure
carefully 3600 feet of wall on the perimeter of the two? Such exactitude is
extremely improbable, but it is between 3400 and 3600 feet that the limits of
deviation lie, and the difference is unimportant, for present purposes at least.

The position of the Antonia relatively to the Temple is defined as clearly
by Josephus as anything can be done by words. The tower at the south-eastern
angle of the Antonia stood inside the north-western angle of the Temple, and
was what prevented the Temple being an exact square, and its destruction was
consequently necessary to fulfil the prophecy that, when the Temple became
four square, the city would be destroyed.3 This is even more clear from the
events of the siege, for after the Romans had obtained possession of the Antonia,
the Jews cut off 20 cubits from the northern and as much from the western
portico, in order to detach them from the tower, so that the Romans might
not have access to their roofs and so command the Court of the Gentiles, from
which they were at that time attacking the inner court of the Temple.4 The
dimensions of this angle-tower in plan are unfortunately not given to us. I
have drawn it as 96 feet square, which represents as nearly as may be the
dimensions of the White Tower in the Tower of London (96 by 116 feet), the
height of both being about the same (70 cubits). The dimensions of the other

1 B. J. v. 5, 2.

2 B. J. V. 7, 2.

•3 B. J. vi. 5, 4.

4 B. J. vi. 2, 9 ; vi. 3, 2 ; vi. 4, 1.

Chap. XI.

THE TOWER ANTONIA.

175

three towers in plan were probably smaller in the same proportion to their
height, which was only 50 cubits, and their position cannot he determined
with the same absolute precision as that of the great tower. Still, that at the
south-western angle may, I fancy, be fixed with very tolerable certainty.

At a distance of a little more than 200 feet westward from the Haram area,
there is a group of three chambers, so disposed that they look like the interior
of such a tower as we are looking for. The lowest of the chambers has a
postern 1 (woodcut No. 45) which is of precisely the same class of masonry as that
of the Gate of the Prophet of the Temple, and
of the original part of the Huldah Gateway (wood-
cut No. 47), and is nearly on the same level. We
may, consequently, assume with considerable con-
fidence that all three were built by Herod, and
are parts of the same design, and if this is so, this
one could hardly be anything but a part of the
Antonia. Till, however, we get a glimpse of the
outside walls that enclosed these chambers, we
must pause. As before mentioned, it never seems
to have occurred to Captain Warren that it was
the outside and not the inside of this labyrinth of
chambers which was all essential for determining
their use and extent. This deficiency could, however, be easily supplied, in so
far as this angle is concerned, and when this is done, we shall have at least
one element for settling this most interesting question of topography.

The northern limit I have fixed, for the present, at the Cotton Bazaar ; but
this is merely a guess. It looks like a causeway that might and would be
built on a wall, but whether this is so or not depends on an examination, on the
spot, by some one who knows what is old, what new, and who examines the place
with the intention of finding this out. If it should turn out that this is so, the
two northern towers would be situated one at each end of the bazaar, the western
one in the street Elwad, the eastern one in the Haram area, at such a distance
inwards as would accord with the position of the eastern wall of the Antonia,
wherever that may be fixed, hereafter. For the present I have assumed this to be
that of the terrace wall of the platform of the Dome of the Rock, in the same
manner as I believe the southern wall of that platform was almost certainly
the northern boundary of the Temple. I cannot, however, quite divest myself
at times of the idea that the western wall of the Haram may be the eastern wall
of the Antonia. That that wall was the second wall of Jerusalem, I proved,
or attempted to prove, when I first wrote on the topography of Jerusalem,2 and
I have seen or heard nothing since to shake my faith in that determination ; but

45. — Arch in South-western Tower of
the Antonia.

(From a sketch by Captain Warren.)

Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 93.

2 Ancient Topography of Jerusalem, p. 41, pi. iii.

176

THE TEMPLE OP HEROD.

Part II.

how much of the old wall may have been utilised in building the Antonia, or
enclosed in it, are questions that I fear must be left for future investigations.

Starting from these data, and correcting them by such local indications as
exist, I fancy the external dimensions of the Temple with the Antonia must

be very nearly as follows : —

Feet.

South face of Antonia 260

West face of Antonia 400

North face of Antonia. 400

East side of Antonia . 300

1360

Adding to this 4 stadia as the perimeter of the Temple . 2400

We have in round numbers 3760

But from this we must deduct for the overlap . . . 160

Leaving exactly the 6 stadia or 3600 feet;

which Josephus states as the perimeter of the two. This minute accuracy is,
of course, only a coincidence, and is stated as such ; but, after admitting all
reasonable rectifications, the result is so nearly the same as to afford a fair
presumption that this is what Josephus really meant to express.1

The height of the rock on which Josephus said the tower stood (50 cubits)
need not astonish us, inasmuch as Captain Warren found the Haram wall, alongside
Wilson’s arch, to be founded on the rock at a depth of 84 feet below the level of
the Temple area, and as the rock in the Haram must be very near the surface, and
within 400 feet of that spot rises to 20 feet above it, it looks very much as if there
was a cliff here such as Josephus describes. Indeed, the more carefully the
question is examined, the more probable does it appear that the western face of
the rocky Zion, before it was covered with masonry, was a cliff, on the western
edge of which the Holy of Holies was situated.

Among the chambers discovered by Captain Warren on the site of the
Antonia is one which he called the Masonic Hall, and which, he states, “ has every
appearance of being the oldest piece of masonry visible in Jerusalem, with the
exception of the sanctuary walls, and perhaps as old as they.”2 From the
appearance of the capital, of which he gives a drawing, I should feel inclined to
agree with the verdict. If the drawing is to be depended upon, it cannot be later
than the time of Herod, and may be very much earlier. The most interesting
peculiarity of this chamber is that on its floor stands a truncated column, no part
of the construction, for the chamber is vaulted above the pillar, but just such a
pillar as criminals would be tied to to be scourged. Such an arrangement, in such a
dungeon, if it occurred in a German mediaeval castle, would excite no other remark

1 The evidence is conflicting ; but I cannot help sometimes suspecting that the Acra and the Antonia are one

and the same place. 2 Recovery of Jerusalem, p. 89.

Chap. XL

THE TOWER ANTONIA.

177

than that its existence is a curious confirmation of what we know of the manners
and customs of the times when the fortress was erected. I by no means intend to
assert that this is the identical column to which Christ was bound. It may be
that, when Constantine built the Dome of the Rock, he thought it necessary to
identify, on the spot, all the scenes of the Passion, as the Crusaders did afterwards,
and placed a column in one of the dungeons of the Antonia for that purpose ; and
this may be his work. Be this as it may, I look upon it as quite certain that this
so-called Masonic Hall was one of the prison cells of the Antonia ; that the

LEVEL OF
HA RAM AREA

LOOP. LINE OF-PASSACE'AW'""

VAUL.T RUNNING EAST &
WEST IM/TH AQUEDUCT.

ENTRANCE^

MASONIC HALL

'*NC R O

ki O WERiRA SSA GeMm

FAL LEN ARCH

GALlktii

2366-S

‘'OUSSO//1S ,
0 ST OAJ/zS

BOTTOM OF SHAFT1—'2360
' ' NO ROCK

WATER MET WITH

ROAD TO BAB AS S/iS/iF

SCALE OF FEET

46. — Section, East and West, through Wilson’s Arch and the Adjoining Chambers.
(From an unpublished plate by Major Wilson.1)

Antonia was the Prsetorium of the Romans, and the residence of Pilate ; and that
it was on its pavement,2 and in its halls and cells, that the principal events of the
Passion took place ; and consequently, that if this is not the actual cell in which
the pillar stood to which Christ was bound, it must have been in a very similar
one, close at hand.

One of the most important discoveries which Captain Warren made in this

2 John xix. 13.

See also Recovery of Jerusalem, plate facing page 81.

178

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

neighbourhood was that of a secret underground passage extending across the
valley from the city to the Temple. It is described in detail in the ‘ Recovery of
Jerusalem,’ page 90, and shown in section in the last woodcut, No. 46. To me it
does not appear doubtful that this is the secret passage mentioned by Josephus in
the 15th book of his ‘Antiquities,’ on finishing the description of the Temple
as rebuilt by Herod.

As that passage is usually read, it is understood to state that this passage led
from the Antonia to the eastern gate of the inner Temple (the gate Nicanor),
and that Herod was allowed by the Jews to build a tower over that gateway in
which he and his Gentile successors might take refuge in the event of any emeute.
Such a translation hears its refutation on its very face, when we recollect that, at
a later period, when the Jews discovered that Agrippa could look into the courts
of the Temple from the new room he had erected in his palace in the city over
the Xystus, they raised the western wall of the Temple1 so as to prevent this
profanation, though he could not see either the altar or any of the most
sacred parts of the precincts from the spot where the palace was situated,
however high it might be raised. Besides this, in the next preceding para-
graph,2 we are told that Herod was not allowed to enter the inner courts of
the Temple, even when they were in course of erection, when his presence and
assistance might have been useful. To pretend under these circumstances that he
was allowed to build a tower to which he had secret access into the very middle
of the inner Temple, and whence he could see all that passed inside, and even look
into the Holy Place, is something too absurd to be for one moment entertained.
Besides, why should he seek to fly from the Antonia, which was the strongest
place in Jerusalem, to a gate of the Temple which, though it might be safe against
external assaults, was certainly the last place in Jerusalem where a Gentile king
would seek refuge against an insurrection of the Jewish priesthood or laity ?
Commonsense tells us that what he really did was to construct a secret means
of communication between the Palace in the city, which was unfortified,
and where he was in great danger in the event of any rising of the people,
to the Antonia, which was the citadel wherein he would be in safety, if
anywhere, in Jerusalem. The passage in Josephus is contorted and clumsily
expressed, but will, I believe, bear the following interpretation : — “ And there
was also made for the king, a secret passage leading from the Antonia (to the
palace), extending as far as the inner Temple by its eastern door, upon or
over which (door) he also constructed a tower for himself, that he might be
able to get up into it, through the underground passage, in order to guard
against any sedition that might he made by the people against their kings.”3

1 Ant. xx. 8, 11.

2 Ant. xv. 11, 5.

Chap. XI.

THE TOWER ANTONIA.

179

This translation, which has been revised by a good Greek scholar, I believe
represents the meaning of the text better than any other that has yet been
proposed.

In the last woodcut (No. 46) the passage is represented as terminating
eastward in the archway next preceding to Wilson’s arch. At one time I had in
consequence drawn these arches as included in, and, in fact, forming part of the
basement of, the great south-eastern tower of the Antonia, placing it astride on
the Temple wall ; but I am assured that such a position is untenable, otherwise
the marks of the southern wall of the tower must have been discovered by the
excavations that were made there by Captain Warren. It seems, however,
that all the explorations at this angle were made at haphazard, no one knowing
what to look for ; and till these are systematically resumed, with a distinct
purpose, on the spot, it is idle to speculate on details from such materials as
we possess. Be this as it may, I look upon it as quite certain that the south-
eastern tower of the Antonia stood at this angle of the Temple, partly in it,
partly outside, and that Wilson’s arch so called was either a part of it or at
least attached to it. I also look upon it as nearly as certain that the secret
passage discovered by Captain Warren is that mentioned by Josejdms as
connecting the palace with the tower over the eastern doorway of the Antonia
which led into the Temple itself. Its existence here is another testimony, if
any were wanted, to the correctness of the position assigned by me to the
Antonia, and, within certain limits, also to its form, as shown in the plan
given in woodcut No. 44.

Within the limits of the Antonia, as above defined, there is a passage of
ancient masonry 125 feet north of Wilson’s arch, which, when examined with
more care and delineated, may get us out of a topographical difficulty, and
vindicate the correctness of Josephus in a manner which would be highly satis-
factory. At page 85 it was pointed out that Josephus describes four gates as
leading from the Temple to the city, while we are only able to identify three.
If this or the corresponding opening in the outer wall of the Antonia can be
made out to be one of the two gates leading to the suburbs, the whole will be
clear. There is nothing in Josephus’ description to lead us to suppose he
enumerated them from north to south, or vice versa. The two Parbar gates
might be anywhere. That leading to the Asmonean palace was certainly the
one now known as the Gate of the Chain ; that with the steps was the one
which led across the valley to the Stoa Basilica, while there is nothing in
his text to indicate the position of the other two. At the same time, it is quite
clear that Josephus considered the Antonia as a part of the Temple. Its
description as such is included in the 5th chapter of his 5th book, which is
exclusively devoted to the Temple, and, throughout, they are spoken of as one
and the same place, and included in the same perimeter of 6 stadia. A gate

180

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

of the Antonia may therefore have been described by him a gate of the Temple,
they being considered as one and the same place.

Whether the plan of the Antonia given in woodcut No. 44 is or is not quite
correct can only be ascertained when explorations are carried out on the spot
with the special intent of investigating its boundaries. Meanwhile, however, it
enables us to understand certain operations of the siege, which hitherto have
seemed inexplicable.

When Titus had mastered the first wall — that of Agrippa — and was
encamped within its precincts, it became indispensable for him to get possession
of the second wall, which formed, as it were, a curtain connecting the north-
western bastions of the city and the Antonia. The position and length of this
wall, I consider as perfectly ascertained. It extended from the gate of Gennath,
which was situated to the eastward of the Hippicus, now known as the Kasr
Jalud, past the Damascus Gate, which belonged to it, and thence trended
southward, forming what is now the western boundary of the northern part
of the Haram area, till it met the Antonia 1 at its north-eastern angle. It
was consequently not until he had obtained possession of this second wall that
Titus was in a position to attack the northern face of the Antonia. At the
same time, it is not quite clear why he did not attack its eastern face. It
may have been that there was a ditch there, now filled up,2 or some obstacle we
do not now see ; or it may have been that any operations he undertook against
that face would have been exposed to attacks on their flank from the defenders
of the north wall of the Temple. Be this as it may, he erected two banks against
the northern face of the Antonia, and two against the corresponding face of the
Temple.3 John, however, was able from the inside of the Antonia to
undermine the two that had been erected against its northern face, and to burn
them, to the great discouragement of the Romans. A second attempt at the same
place was, however, successful,4 and the Romans penetrated into the interior of
the Antonia, but were very much disgusted at finding a second wall, which
Josephus represents as run up in haste by John and his faction during the
siege. This, however, can hardly be quite correct. A besieged garrison may
throw up earthworks during an investment, but to build defensive walls of stone
is an operation that would be very difficult, to say the least of it ; unless, indeed,
some foundation or structure previously existed on the spot, which could be
converted into a temporary defence. Feeling this to be the case, I have drawn
it running north and south, where I think it extremely probable a terrace wall
existed anteriorly ; but if it is thought more probable that it ran east and west

1 B. J. v. 4, 2. Now that my stupid mistake of

reading 40 instead of 14, as the number of towers in
this wall, is found out, there seems no difficulty whatever

about it. It must have been as shown in my plan of

the city, in my Topography of Jerusalem, and in the

Dictionary of the Bible, with the slightest possible
deviation either way.

2 B. J. v. 4, 2.

3 B. J. iv. 12, 4.

4 B. J. vi. 1, 4.

Chap. XI.

THE TOWER ANTONIA.

181

facing the attack, there is nothing now known to contradict such an hypothesis.
When this second wall was taken by stratagem in a night attack,1 it is easy to see
how its possession gave the Romans access to the south-eastern tower, which was
the keep of the fortress, by which they seem to have entered pell-mell with the
Jews, and thus consequently gained access to the Temple, to which all their
subsequent operations were confined. The plan also makes it easy to understand
how Titus, being in possession of the second wall, was enabled to bring up the
supports through the breach which had been made in the northern wall of the
Antonia by the mining operations of John, and to follow the retreating Jews
into the Temple itself.2

It would be easy to extend these descriptions of the siege operations to a
much greater length, were this the place for doing so. All, however, that seems
to he required here is to explain that the plan of the Antonia now proposed
does reconcile the descriptions of Josephus with his narrative of the events of the
siege in a most satisfactory manner. There may be other plans or other means
by which this may be done, but I am not aware of any one that will stand the
test of serious examination.3 After all, as said before, it is the spade that
must decide the question, but, meanwhile, this plan of the Antonia may probably
be accepted as meeting all the local and written exigencies of the case, as at
present known.

It is to be hoped, however, that these investigations on the spot will be
resumed and carried out on a systematic plan, for, if I am correct in assuming
that Wilson’s arch and the underground chambers to the westward of it are

parts of the substructures of the Antonia, there are few spots in Jerusalem
more full of interest to the Christian topographer. No one, I believe, doubts
that the Antonia was the Prastorium of the Romans and the residence of Pontius
Pilate ; and it consequently was within its precincts that some of the most
pathetic and important concluding scenes of the Passion took place, and if the
localities can be recognised, this will add much to the clearness of the narrative.
It may be difficult to accomplish this, as the place has been so frequently rebuilt
and repaired that it may not be easy to recognise its ancient arrangements. The
locality, however, is not now sacred ; so no difficulty would be experienced on
that account ; and if I am not mistaken, it is to us one of the most interesting
of all the sacred localities to be found within the walls of Jerusalem.

1 B. J. vi. 1, 7.

2 B. J. vi. 1, 7.

3 Mr. Lewin’s (Sketch of Jerusalem, pp. 198 et seqq.)
is the most careful and judicious analysis I am ac-

quainted with, but his detaching the Antonia wholly
from the Temple, and placing an interval of 250 feet
between them, seems to me quite fatal to his hypothesis
and all the reasoning based upon it.

182

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

CHAPTER XII.

HISTORY OF THE TEMPLE AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.

Although it is literally true that not one stone of all the great and glorious
buildings described in the preceding pages now remains standing upon another
above ground, yet it was long before the prophecy was fulfilled so fully as it now
is. Indeed, down to the time when the Saracens, by building the mosque El
Aksa in a.d. 688, successfully accomplished what Julian failed in attempting, the
ruins of the Temple seem to have been so extensive as to be easily recognisable,
and no one seems to have had any doubt or hesitation regarding them. It would,
indeed, have been strange had it been otherwise. The buildings of the Temple
were of the most massive description, far more so than most of the peristylar
temples of the Romans ; and had Jerusalem not continued to be an inhabited city,
and a religious capital from the days of Hadrian downwards, there is no practical
reason why the ruins of the Temple should not now be as distinct as those of the
temples of Baalbec or Gerash, and of many other cities of Palestine. When
once the Temple was burnt and desecrated, and the Jews banished from Jerusalem,
there was no special reason why the Romans should have taken any great pains
to clear away the ruins ; nor did they undertake any such buildings in Jerusalem
as might require them to have recourse to them as a convenient quarry for their
constructions. Till Hadrian’s time at least, the city seems to have been left
absolutely desolate, and though a Roman garrison was left there, it wras mainly
for the purpose of keeping it so, by preventing the Jews from returning to their
ancient abodes. Hadrian seems to have erected the place into a Roman colony,
with the name of iElia Capitolina, but chiefly to keep the Jews in check, and,
if we may trust the Bordeaux Pilgrim, erected a statue of himself on the site of
the Temple, apparently to symbolise the supremacy of the Roman secular power
over that of the Jewish theocracy.

Had the Christians been then in power, the case might have been different.
Owing to the solemn malediction pronounced against the Temple by Christ,1 they
always looked on it as accursed, and not only never built anything within its
precincts, but might have done a good deal to hasten the fulfilment of a prophecy
which they were impatient to see accomplished. St. Chrysostom, about the year
400 a.d., exclaims, “ There shall not remain one stone upon another. How then

1 Matthew xxiv. 2 ; Mark xiii. 2 ; Luke xix. 44.

Chap. XII.

THE TEMPLE AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.

183

did it remain ? one may say. But what is this ? For neither has the prediction
fallen to the ground. For he said these things, either indicating its entire
desolation or at that spot where he was.” And he adds, “ There are parts of it
destroyed unto the foundations,” thus clearly indicating that there were other
parts which at his day were still standing and easily recognisable.1 A little
earlier, Cyril speculates on the time “ when the prophecy shall be fulfilled, either
through decay of time, or a demolition for the use of new buildings, or as
ensuing from other causes.”2 But besides these rhetorical flourishes, we have
the distinct and prosaic description of things as they were in the time of Con-
stantine, when the Bordeaux Pilgrim visited Jerusalem. Everything he says
about the Temple not only indicates that the ruins were perfectly distinct
in his day, but his account of them is such that we are able to recognise
without difficulty all the features he describes ; and as his is the only account
we have, written between the time of Titus and that of Constantine, it is
of more than usual interest.3

There can be very little doubt that the tower he first mentions is that which
still exists at the south-east angle of the Haram area, and as it was not then, in
all probability, buried with rubbish nearly to the extent it now is, it might very
well, as the highest building then existing in Jerusalem, be taken for the pinnacle
of the Temple mentioned in the Temptation scene. The tradition that Solomon’s
palace was there is both curious and instructive. Some vestiges of it must have
remained, or it wTould hardly have been recognised, as history is so singularly
silent regarding it, after its destruction at the Captivity.

The two statues of Hadrian must apparently be two statues by Hadrian,
inasmuch as at a subsequent period St. Jerome distinctly states — and no one
knew better than he did — that, where the Temple was, a statue of Hadrian and an
image of Jupiter were standing in his day.4 As it is scarcely probable that a
statue of Jupiter would be left in the open air, exposed to all the inclemency of
the weather, the presumption is that Hadrian so far restored the Temple as to
render it suitable for the reception of this image and appropriate to the worship
of the principal deity of his Pantheon.

The most interesting particular, however, mentioned by the Pilgrim is the
“ Lapis Pertusus,” which was then the Wailing Place of the Jews, and afterwards

1 Horn, in Matt. iii. p. 994 ; Migne, vol. lviii. 685,
686.

2 Cat. Lect. xv. 15, 890.

3 “ Ibi est angulus turris excelsissimas, ubi Dominus
ascendit et dixit ei qui tentabat eum : Si filius Dei es,
mitte te deorsum. Ibi est lapis angularis magnus de
quo dictum est, Lapidem quem reprobaverunt sedificantes
ille factus est ad caput anguli. Et sub pinna turris
ipsius sunt cubicula plurima, ubi Salomon palatium
habebat. . . . Et in aede ipsa, ubi Templum fuit, quod

Salomon aedificavit, in marmore, ante aram, sanguinem

Zacbariae dicunt bodie fusum ; etiam parent vestigia
clavorum militum qui eum occiderunt, per totam aream
ut putes in cera esse fixam. Sunt ibi et status; duae
Hadriani et non longe de statuis, lapis pertusus, ad
quem veniunt Judab singulis annis et unguunt eum,
et lamentant se cum gemitu, et vestimenta sua scindunt,
et sic recedunt.” Tobler, Palsestinte Descriptiones,
pp. 3, 4.

4 “Ubi quondam erat Templum et religio Dei, ibi
Hadriani statua et Jovis idolum collocatum est.”
Hieron. Com. in Isaiam ; Valesius, vol. iv. p. 37.

184

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

became the Sakhra of the Saracens, and the memory of which still plays so
important a part in the history of the Haram area.

At the time of Constantine the persecution of the Jews seems to have died
out, and they were apparently allowed free access to Jerusalem and the Temple
area ; and as it appears that the buildings were still sufficiently entire for every
part to be recognisable, it is evident there would be only two stones in the area
for which the Jews could feel any particular reverence : one, the stone of
foundation, on which the Ark is said to have stood in the Holy of Holies ; the
other some stone or stones representing the Altar. It could hardly have been
the former, which is not mentioned in the Bible, while so little importance is
attached to it, either in the Talmud or elsewhere, that even its existence is
doubtful ; 1 and still more so because there is no reason why it should be per-
tusus, and no tradition that it ever was so. On the other hand, there certainly
was at the principal angle of the Altar— -the south-western — a stone bored
with two holes as two thin nostrils,2 and which played a most important part in
the service of the Altar. Whatever may have been the case with the upper part
of the Altar, here certainly was a stone which had not escaped “ the curse of
iron,” and was not only hewn but pierced, and, from its position as at that angle
of the Altar nearest the Temple which could be seen from the Court of Israel,
must always have been both conspicuous and important. It was, consequently,
of all the stones of the Temple, the one most likely for the Jews to fix upon
as the representative of the Altar of their God ; and, as we shall presently see,
there seems little doubt that this corner-stone of the Altar was the Sakhra not
only of the Jews, but at one time of the Saracens also.

We have no means of knowing to what extent Constantine may have
utilised the materials of the Temple for his buildings in the Haram area. It is
hardly probable that he would employ the stones of the Temple itself for his
churches, but there seems no reason why the pillars of the outer porticos or
external walls of the courts might not be so employed. If we had any remains
of his Basilica, we might probably answer these questions without difficulty.
The internal decorations, however, of the Anastasis were on too small a scale to
enable its builders to utilise any parts of the porticos that are described by
Josephus ; and from the various remodellings that have since taken place, it
is, and always must be, extremely difficult to follow any particular feature
to its final resting-place.

The attempt of Julian the Apostate to rebuild the Temple in the year 363,
and the miraculous manner in which this design is said to have been defeated, is
one of the most curious episodes in the whole history of the building. Had

1 On this subject, see a paper in the Quarterly

Reports, P. E. F. 1876, p. 23, by Dr. Chaplin, and
another in the same, on p. 62, by Captain Warren.

The reasoning in these papers appears to me so singu-
larly vague and inconclusive as hardly to affect the
question. 2 Middoth iii. 2.

Chap. XII.

THE TEMPLE AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.

185

Julian lived six months or a year longer, it would no doubt have altered con-
siderably the whole conditions of the problem. The subject was taken up by him
with enthusiasm, and, as Gibbon says, “ In this propitious moment men forgot
their avarice, and women their delicacy. Every purse was opened, and every
hand claimed a share in the pious labour; ” 1 and had this continued any time, all
trace of the old Temple would have disappeared, and a new one been erected in
its stead, which might have been more perplexing to future enquirers than the
desolation that now reigns on the site. As it is, the only trace of Julian’s
handiwork we now find on the spot is a fragment of a frontispiece attached
to the Herodian work of the Huldah Gateway externally. To judge from its
style, we may feel confident that it is nearly of the same age as the archi-
tecture of the Golden Gateway, but slightly
more modern ; while the imperfect mode
in which it is attached, so that daylight
can be seen between it and the wall, shows
that it is part of some restoration at-
tempted about his time. It is probably,
also, to the same attempt that we owe the
four pillars now standing in the gate-
way below, and some of the alterations
in the domed hall beneath ; but there is
nothing above-ground ascribable to Julian’s
age. Indeed, it is probable, from the short
time the work was in hand, that more
was done in clearing away the ruins and
in collecting materials than in any rebuild-
ing. At all events, it is quite evident that
there was no doubt in the minds of those
who undertook it, either as to the site or
the form of the building the restoration of
which they had undertaken. At least, not
one hint of any such hesitation is to be
found in any writer of that ag:e.

It is not necessary here to attempt to investigate the true nature of the
frightful globes of fire and other supernatural phenomena which interrupted the
operations and drove the labourers in terror from the works.2 For our present
purpose it is enough to observe that the exultation with which the news was
received by the whole Christian world, and the implicit belief in a Divine
interposition, are sufficient to prove how utterly accursed the Temple of the
Jews was held to have been, and how great a blow to Christianity its

47. — Julian’s Affix to the Huldah Gateavay.
(From a photograph.)

1 History of Decline and Fall, vol. iii. p. 166.

2 Ammianus Marcell, xxiii. 1.

18G

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

rebuilding would have been considered. By Divine interference this impious
attempt was defeated, and all the Christian world rejoiced at its victory.

Shortly after this, in the beginning of the fifth century, a Christian
Roman poet sings : —

“ Porta manet Templi speciosam qnam vocitarunt,

Egregium Salomonis opus, seel ms jus in ilia
Christi opus emicuit ; nam claudus surgere jussus
Ore Petri stupuit damnatos currere gressus.” 1

That this refers to the gate Nicanor of the Talmud, the Beautiful Gate of the
Bible, does not seem to admit of any doubt ; and if it was standing at that time,
and the statue of Jupiter was still erect in his day, as St. Jerome would lead
us to believe, in the Temple, or at least on its site, there could in the fifth
century be no doubt as to site or limits of the Jewish Temple.

One other author before the time of the Moslem invasion mentions the
Temple in a manner that would lead us to suppose that its parts were all well
known at the time he wrote. Antoninus Martyrus visited Jerusalem shortly after
the buildings undertaken by Justinian in the Haram area had been completed, in
or about the year 570,2 “We prayed,” he says, “in the PrEetorium where our
Lord was heard, which now is the Basilica of Santa Sophia. Before the ruins of
the Temple of Solomon water runs down below the platform to the fountain of
Siloam (by the Water Gate). Alongside of the portico of Solomon in the Basilica
is the seat on which Pilate sat when he heard our Lord,” 3 which he describes as
still exhibiting the impression of his feet, and other particulars that do not
interest us here. Except that he appears mistaken in the historical fact that the
Prsetorium was the Antonia, and not the Palace of Solomon, all this seems distinct
and clear, and perfectly in accord with what we know of the localities. It is
satisfactory to find that the old judgment-seat of Solomon “ alongside of his portico ”
was still known and correctly described in the sixth century ; and the water
running down from the Water Gate is also exactly what we would expect, and
what, curiously enough, we find mentioned even in the Talmud, where it is said
the Water Gate was so called because “through it the water returned out, and in
future it will issue from under the threshold of the house.” 4 The importance of
all this, however, will be more apparent presently, when we come to speak of the
acts and words of the Saracens, who, not long after Justinian’s time, appeared
on the scene, and successfully accomplished what Julian had attempted in vain.

1 Aurelius Prudentius, Diptychon, xlvi. The poet was
born in Spain a.d. 348, and came to Rome a.d. 407. It
was apparently after that date that the poem was'written.

2 I follow the edition of this author published by
Dr. T. Tobler, St. Gallen, 1863.

3 “ Oravimus in Prastorio ubi auditus est Dominus, et

rnodo est Basilica sanct® Sophi®, ante ruinas templi

Salomonis, sub platea aqua decurrit ad fontem Siloam.
Secus porticum Salomonis in ipsa basilica est sedes, in
qua sedit Pilatus quando Dominum audivit. Petra
autem ibi est quadrangula, qu® stabat in medio pr®-
torio, ad quam reus levabatur qui audiebatur,” &c.
Tobler, De locis sanctis St. Gallen, 1863, p. 25.

4 Middoth ii. 6.

Chap. XII.

THE TEMPLE AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.

i 87

Saracenic Conquest.

The last scene of all that “ ends this strange eventful history ” is the rebuilding
of the Temple by Abd-el-Malek, between the years 66 and 73 of the Hegira
(a.d. 685-692) ; but before coming to this, it may be necessary to say a few
words regarding some of the events that occurred at the conquest of Jerusalem
by Omar, in the year 15 of the Hegira (a.d. 636), in order to explain what was
then known of the Temple and its site. Unfortunately, the works in which these
events are recorded do not come within the range of the ordinary reading of
even learned Englishmen, and it is consequently easy for those who either form
theories of the Temple at the shortest possible notice or refute those of others
without notice at all, either to ignore them altogether or to make the most daring
assertions regarding them.1 It seems to me, however, impossible that any one
can read the account of these events ‘as narrated by the Patriarch Eutychius,2
and afterwards by Jelal-ed-Din 3 and Mejr-ed-Din, without perceiving that the
church in which the Patriarch Sophronius received Omar, when entering the city
from the Mount of Olives, was the present Dome of the Rock, and that the church
on the steps of which, facing the east, Omar did pray was the Basilica of
Constantine, and that the exact spot was just inside the Golden Gateway. Had
he received him in the present Church of the Holy Sepulchre — which is the only
alternative — it seems impossible that any uncertainty could have existed as to
whether that was the Temple of David or not ; but the Patriarch may very well
have dreaded the idea of a Mahomedan mosque being erected on the Temple site
in such immediate proximity to the sacred places of the Christians, and have tried
to explain to the Khalif that the whole area was already occupied by the Christians.
When, however, he was defeated in this attempt by the local knowledge of Omar,
who still claimed a place on which to build his mosque, the Patriarch replied,
“I give to the Commander of the Faithful a place where he may build a Temple,
which the Grecian emperors were unable to build” (alluding, apparently, to
Julian’s unsuccessful attempt). “The rock on which God spoke to Jacob, which
Jacob called the Gate of Heaven, the Israelites the Holy of Holies. But, on one
condition, that you will give me a rescript that you will build no other place
of prayer within Jerusalem except that one,” which Omar having written
delivered it to the Patriarch. As there is no complaint of this treaty ever

1 As I have already quoted these authorities in my

Topography of Jerusalem, pp. 130 et seqq., to a sufficient
extent to enable any one to understand their bearing, 1

may he excused going over the subject again. Since I
wrote in 1848 nothing new has been published on this
special subject, so far as I am aware, except a translation
of the work of Mejr-ed-Din, by Sauvaire, Paris, 1876.
It is satisfactory, but adds very little to our previous
knowledge.

2 Annales. Interprete Ed. Pococltio. 2 vols. Oxon,
1658. He wrote, apparently, about a.d. 870.

3 Fundgruhen des Orients, vol. ii. pp. 83 et seqq.
and vol. iv. pp. 158 et seqq. He wrote about 900 of the
Hegira, say a.d. 1525. See also translation by Sauvaire,
Paris, 1876.

4 History of the Temple at Jerusalem, translated by
James Reynolds for the Oriental Translation Fund,
1826.

188

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

having been violated, it is one proof at least that both the Aksa and the Dome of
the Rock were not built by the Moslems. Eutychius, writing about a hundred
years after these events, then goes on to say, “For when the Romans embraced
Christianity, and Helena, the mother of Constantine, built churches in Jerusalem
the place of the rock (Sakhra) and those adjacent to it were laid waste and so
left ; and they threw dust on the rock, so that a large dunghill was heaped upon
it, and the Romans did not reverence it as the Jews had done, nor did they erect
any church upon it, because the Lord had said, 4 Behold, your house shall be left
unto you desolate,’ and again, ‘ There shall not be left one stone upon another
that shall not be cast down and laid waste.’ ” 1

Apparently there was not at that time any means of access to the Temple
area from the north. The old wall of the Temple, or one in its place, seems to
have been kept up as a barrier to divide the holy places of the Christians
from the accursed locality of the Jews. On the east, access — if any — could only
have been through the buildings of Justinian, and this may not have been
convenient. The Patriarch, consequently, led Omar round to the gate Huldah,
and though it was blocked up with rubbish, they penetrated through it, creeping
on their hands and knees till they came to a plain place, “ when Omar, looking
to the right and left, exclaimed, ‘ God is great : by him who holds my soul in
his hands, this is the Temple of David, from which the Prophet told me he
had made the night journey.’ 2 There they found the Sakhra they were looking
for, covered with dung, which the Greeks had thrown there in contempt of the
Jews.” This Omar and his companions proceeded at once to remove with
their hands, and in their cloaks, and having thrown it into the valley of
Hinnorn, cleared the place of defilement. They then proceeded to discuss how
it should be utilised, when Kaab suggested that the mosque should be turned
towards the Sakhra, but Omar replied, “ That is the direction of the Jews ; it
would be better to build it before the Rock (Sakhra) that those who pray
there may have before them the Kiblah of Mecca, and not that of Jerusalem,”
and, in effect, Omar did build the small mosque that still bears his name,
exactly in the situation indicated, overhanging the southern wall at the south-
east angle of the Mosque El Aksa.

So long as it was an open question whether the Sakhra was “the Stone
of Foundation” in the Holy of Holies or the corner-stone of the Altar, it was
also doubtful whether it was by the Prophet’s Gate, or the gate Huldah
that Omar penetrated to the Temple area. With the almost absolute certainty
that we now have, that it was the latter, we arrive at a similar conviction that
it was by the Water Gate that they crept in. Indeed, what Mejr-ed-Din says
about “ water running down the steps,” 3 coupled with the assertion of

1 Eutychii Annales, Arab, et Lat. Oxon, 1658, vol. ii. p. 284.

2 Mejr-ed-Din, Paris, 1876, p. 42. 3 Fundgruben des Orients, vol. iv. p. 160.

Chap. XII.

THE TEMPLE AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.

] 89

Antoninus Martyrus and the passage from the Middoth just quoted, renders
this nearly certain. The truth of the matter is, Omar and all those about him
knew exactly what they wanted, and where to look for it; and they went to
their object direct and without hesitation, and with the knowledge we now have
of the localities, we can follow them step by step without fail. If, on the
contrary, we try to apply the narratives of the Mahomedan historians to the
Sakhra, which now is under the Dome of the Rock, there is hardly a word
in their descriptions which is intelligible. There are no underground passages
by which Omar and his companions could creep up on hands and knees to find
a great rock standing out “ erect and alone,” the highest part of a hill. Besides
this, to hide with a dung-heap a rock 60 feet square, and from 10 to 20 feet in
height, is more than the Christians are likely to have undertaken, whatever
their contempt for the Jews may have been ; and if it had been done, it would
have required carts and horses for weeks to remove it, not the labour of a
few men for a few hours with their hands and cloaks. If the Sakhra was a
stone 4 or 5 feet square, and 18 inches high, all that we are told of it in these
narratives is clear and intelligible. If it was the hill-top under the Dome of the
Rock, not one word seems applicable. So Omar thought, when Sophronius tried
to persuade him that the present Sakhra was identical with the old one ; and
though it would not now be considered polite to express oneself so strongly as
he did on the subject, it now seems certain that any one who, after reading all
the evidence, would still assert their identity would have no right to complain
of almost any epithet that could be applied to him.

The first century of the Hegira is not one in which the Moslems indulged in
any architectural magnificence in any part of the world, and Omar’s little
mosque, which he built behind the Sakhra, was probably more than sufficient
for the religious requirements of the city of Jerusalem, which was then more
essentially Christian than the town of Bethlehem now is. It may also have
been that the Moslems felt themselves hampered by that clause in the capitula-
tion which restricted them to one place of worship. They may, too, have felt
unwilling to spend much money on a spot overlooked — on two sides at least — by
Christian buildings of a magnificence they could not hope to rival, but the
presence of which in that locality must have been gall and wormwood to the
followers of the Prophet. Had the Jews adopted the new religion, as it was
at one time hoped, during the life of Mahomet, they might have been induced
to do, the case would have been widely different. Had they done so, there
seems little doubt that the Lapis Pertusus of their Altar would have taken the
place now occupied by the Black Stone of the Kaaba, and Jerusalem would
have supplanted Mecca as the sacred city of the new faith. To accomplish
this, however, it would have been necessary to obtain possession of the city
and expel its Christian inhabitants. That the Arabs, without at least the aid

190

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part. II.

of the Jews, were not able to accomplish during the life of the Prophet,
and by the time of Omar it was too late ; Mecca was then the acknow-
ledged Kiblah, and this could not be changed. The possession of the site
of Solomon’s Temple was, notwithstanding, still an object of ambition, not
only because it was the spot from which Mahomet started on his famous night
journey to Paradise, but also because its possession, with that of Hebron, served
to connect the new religion with the traditions of the old one from Abraham
and David downwards, and give it at once that antiquity so essential to stability
in matters of faith.

Be this as it may, it is certain that the buildings in the Temple area
remained pretty much in the state in which Omar had left them, till Abdulla-
ibn-Zobeir seized on Mecca, and either interrupted the pilgrimages or levied
taxes on them for his own benefit. In consequence of this, Abd-el-Malek
ibn-Merwan, a Khalif of the house of Ommiah, reigning at Damascus, revived
the idea of making Jerusalem a place of pilgrimage — whether the only one
or not, is not quite clear — and, in order to do this, determined on rebuilding
the Temple of Solomon on its original site. This time, however, it was not
to conciliate the Jews, and consequently, though he centred his mosque on the
Altar of David, and placed it at about the same distance from it, he did not
attempt to restore the original Temple. On the contrary, he placed his
mosque to the southward of the Altar instead of the west, and turned its
Kiblah towards the sacred cities of the Prophet, thus combining the two
Kiblahs into one, as Kaab had recommended Omar to do, half a century
before that time.

Though obviously centred on the altar of the Jewish Temple, there is a
peculiarity in the position of the mosque which for a long time seemed to me
inexplicable. If we assume that the position of the Altar was known, nothing
would have been so easy or so obvious for Abd-el-Malek as to have constructed
the central nave of his mosque over the centre of the passage leading from the
Huldah Gateway, and so, practically, to have incorporated that part of the old
Temple symmetrically with his. This, however, was not done but at the
expense of considerable constructive difficulty, the whole was pushed some
twenty feet or more westward, evidently, as it now appears, to centre his
nave, not on the centre of the Altar, but on the Lapis Pertusus or Sakhra
at its south-western angle, which then represented the Altar of the Jews. It
seems at least difficult to suggest any other motive for this curious change in
the centre-line of the mosque, which could hardly have been accidental.1

In describing the addition Abd-el-Malek made to the modest building
erected by Omar, two at least of the historians make use of an expression which,
if applied to the present Sakhra, seems simple nonsense. It is said he so increased

1 See plan of Aksa, Plate I.

Chap. XII.

THE TEMPLE AFTER THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM.

191

the Temple (mosque) as to include the Sakhra within the sanctuary.1 The present
Sakhra is, and always was, in the centre of the building that contains it, and no
possible augmentation could alter that fact. But if Abd-el-Malek is understood
to have appropriated or enclosed the whole, or the greater part, of the Jewish
Temple in his mosque, it may fairly be said that he brought the Jewish Altar
within its limits. This might not be exactly true of a church or a temple as we
usually understand the term, but a mosque is by no means necessarily a covered
space, and, as at Mecca, the most holy objects and places are in the centre of an
open court, and so it certainly seems to have been with the Sakhra here.

This, we learn with certainty, was the case at Jerusalem, from the historians
of the Crusades. John of Wurzburg, for instance, writing about the year 1170,
states that, “ at the Altar in the Temple, which is outside under the terrace, at a
distance of more than 100 feet” (from the Templum Domini, or Dome of the
Rock), “ Zacharias was slain.” “ On the Altar,” he adds, “ in the time of the Old
Testament, the Jews were accustomed to offer turtle-doves and pigeons, but
afterwards the Saracens converted the Altar into a dial, which now exists
there, towards the south, where many Saracens, even at this day, turn to
prayer as is their habit to do, facing southwards.” 2 There is in this no
mention, it is true, of its being pertusus , though it would be difficult to
describe more accurately its position, or the veneration in which it had always
been held by the Moslems. Fortunately, the omitted reference to its being
pierced is supplied by his companion Theodoricus. He describes it as situated
between the eastern and southern boundaries of the external court, and
mentions two theories regarding it ; first, that it was the opening into the
cisterns existing there, or that it was the place where Zacharias was slain.3

From all this it seems perfectly certain that the Lapis Pertusus of the
Bordeaux Pilgrim, the Sakhra of Omar, and the Altar-stone of the Crusaders are
one and the same thing, and nearly as certain that it was the corner-stone of the
Altar of the Jews which was “pierced with two holes like nostrils.”4 The
Saracens at least — if we may trust John of Wurzburg — knew this jierfectly, down
to the end of the twelfth century.5 So it could only have been after the

1 “ Auxit ita Templum ut petram inferret in Templi
adytum.” Eutychii Annales, ii. p. 364. El Macinus,
Opera, studio Espenii, Lugd. 1G25, p. 69.

2 “In templo ad altare quod extra erat, sub clivo

remotum a templo plus quam xx passus, Zacharias

filius Bara chi a: Martyr occubuit. Supra quod in veteri
testamento Judaei turtures et columbas sacrifacere

consueverant. Sed postea a Saracenis mutatum est
altare illud in horologium, quod adhuc videri et notari
potest, cum plures Saraceni etiam hodie, orandi causa,
ad ipsum versus meridiem depositum, ad quern meridiem
ipsi orare solent, veniunt.” Pezii Thesaurus Anec-
dotorum novissimus, vol. i. pars iii. p. 495.

3 “ Inter Templum quoque et duo latera atrii exte-
rioris, orientale scilicet et meridianum, lapis magnus
situs est in modum altaris, qui secuudum quorundam
traditiones os est piscinarum ibidem consistentium,
secundum aliorum vero opinionem Zachariam Baruchise
filium ibidem peremtum fuisse designat.” Theodoricus,
Libellus de Locis sanctis. Tobler, p. 37.

4 Middoth iii. 2.

6 It is curious that all the authors, from the Bordeaux
Pilgrim down at least to John of Wurzburg, who
mention the Altar of the Jews also notice the slaughter
of Zacharias, and seem at least to point to the traces of
that event as still visible on the spot.

192

THE TEMPLE OF HEROD.

Part II.

Crusades, in the time probably of Saladin, that they adopted from the Christians
the theory that the great Sakhra was the site of the Jewish Altar, and intro-
duced all that mass of fables and incongruities that have since so perplexed all
who have attempted to investigate the question.

From the time of the Crusades, the true Sakhra disappears from history, and
the Jews have been forced to seek a wailing-place outside the Temple walls.
They have, however, naturally selected that spot where they could approach
most nearly to the Holy of Holies of their once loved Temple, and to the stone
of that Altar which had been an object of their adoration since the days of
Solomon.

To most of these points we shall have occasion to revert again when
speaking of the buildings which Constantine and Justinian erected in the Haram
area, but must conclude this branch of the subject by quoting the words of the
last Christian author who, so far as I know, speaks of any other ruins of
Solomon’s Temple, except this one altar-stone, as existing in his day. The
French bishop Arculfus was at Jerusalem in or before the year 795, when
Abd-el-Malek was busy erecting the Aksa. “ In that famous place,” he says,
“ where once the glorious Temple stood, near the eastern wall, the Saracens are
now erecting upon some ruins a square house of prayer, which would contain
about three thousand persons.” 1 The ruins here alluded to could only be those
of the Temple itself, and with the attendant circumstances describe with absolute
accuracy the position of things as we know from other authorities they existed
in his day.

Although the Saracens respected the locality, it is hardly probable that they
would have much or any respect for the buildings of the Jews, or the materials
out of which they were constructed. It, consequently, probably was with the
building of the Aksa that the great clearance of the Temple ruins was com-
menced. Constantine and Justinian may have taken materials from the same
quarry, but it probably was in the eighth and subsequent centuries that the
clearance of the Temple area was really effected : thus the prophecy, that not
one stone should be left on another, was literally fulfilled, and our description of
the Temple, and its history, consequently brought to its natural termination.

1 “ Ceterum in illo famoso loco ubi quondam Templum
magnifice constructum fuerat, invicinia muri ab oriente
locatum, nunc Saraceni quadrangularem orationis do-
mum, quam subrectis tabulis et magnis trabibus super

quasdam ruinarum reliquias vili fabricati sunt opere,
ipsi frequentant, quas utique domus tria hominum
millia ut fertur capere potest.” Acta Sanct. ssec. iii.
pars 2, p. 524.

Part III.

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

CHAPTER I.

INTKODUCTOEY.

As the evidence now stands, or as it stood thirty years ago, there is no pro-
position connected with the topography of Jerusalem that, to my mind, is so
clear and indisputable as that the buildings, popularly known as the Mosque of
Omar — more correctly as the Dome of the Rock — and the Golden Gateway, are
two of those described by Eusebius 1 as being erected by Constantine in honour of
the death and resurrection of the Founder of the Christian religion.

I have no intention of again going over, for a third or fourth time, the
evidence on which this conclusion is based. It has been already stated in detail
in my ‘Topography of Jerusalem,’ in 1847, and a second time in a little work
entitled ‘ Notes on Site of the Holy Sepulchre and the Temple at Jerusalem,’ in
1861, and a third time in another work on ‘ The Holy Sepulchre and the Temple
at Jerusalem,’ in 1865, besides letters innumerable in the ‘ Athengeum ’ and other
publications. I have nothing, on that point, to unsay of what I then advanced,
and the argument was then, to my mind, so complete and irrefragable that those
who were not convinced by it then will hardly be moved from their unbelief by
hearing it repeated over again once more. Either it is, that they are too ignorant
of the value of the architectural evidence, from which these conclusions were prin-
cipally drawn, to appreciate its importance, or they have motives — some will, no
doubt, think, highly respectable — for resisting what may be the truth, fearing
that it would unsettle the faith of the multitude in certain traditions, to which
they cling with a tenacity worthy of a better cause. It is not, therefore, intended
on the present occasion to repeat what has already been said in sufficient detail,
but only to add such new pieces of evidence as have been brought to light
by recent researches or explorations on the spot. They are not, perhaps, in
themselves, sufficiently distinct to convert those who were not convinced before ;

2 c

Vita Constantini, iii. 26 et seqq.

194

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

but, as they all tend in the same direction, they may serve to confirm the faith of
those who had sufficient knowledge to understand the meaning of the arguments
as first stated. Before doing this, however, it may make what follows clearer
if I state, in as few words as possible, what were the principal grounds on which
the original conclusions were based.

In the first place, the so-called Mosque of Omar is not a mosque at all.
Everyone who has lived in Mahomedan countries knows, that practically, a
mosque is a wall built at right angles to the direction of Mecca ; its object
being to enable the faithful to obey the precept of the Koran, which enjoins
them to turn to the Kaaba at Mecca when they pray. No provision of this sort
exists in the Dome of the Rock. On the contrary, the principal entrance is on
the south ; and the worshipper, consequently, on entering turns his back on
Mecca, a piece of irreverence which does not occur, so far as I know, in any
place of prayer, of the Moslems, in any part of the world.

Secondly. Whether built by Moslem or Christian, the Dome of the Rock is
essentially a tomb-house. Between Rome and Delhi, there are some thousands
of similar buildings ; some square, others octagonal, sometimes, but rarely,
circular, nearly all surmounted by domes, and having entrances generally on
four sides. In Christian countries they are sometimes called baptisteries, because
they originally were used for both purposes ; and in the early ages of Christianity
they were used also as churches, before they were superseded by the final adoption
of the basilican forms. In the East, though with exceptions in the early ages of
the Church, they are tombs.

Thirdly. The architecture of the Dome of the Rock belongs, undoubtedly,
to an age anterior to the Hegira (a.d. 622). Without going beyond the limits
of the Haram area, we have there another building called the Aksa, built by
Abcl-el-Malek, 66 to 73 h. (a.d. 685-692) ; and I feel confident that no competent
person can compare the two without arriving at the conclusion that two or
three centuries at least must have elapsed between their erection. The one
retains a great deal of the elegance of classical art ; the other is “ vili fabricata
opere,” as Arculfus tells us, with pointed arches, and altogether in a far more
modern style. Their relative position in the history of art is certain, and it
is impossible they should have been built by the same person or in the same
age.

Fourthly. If the Saracens built the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem, they
might be expected to have built some other building in the same style in some
other place. None such, however, is known ; and no one has yet pointed out
any, or ventured to assert that any such existed.

Lastly, turning to the building itself. No one who knows anything of
the architecture of that age will hesitate to admit that the Dome of the Rock
was erected subsequently to the octagonal building, now known as the Temple
of Jupiter, which Diocletian erected in his palace of Spalatro as a tomb-house for

Chap. I.

INTRODUCTORY.

195

himself in or about the year 300 a.d. On the other hand, a man must be
curiously ignorant of the history of the style who does not perceive that it is
anterior — long anterior indeed — to the building of San Vitale at Ravenna, which
was completed in a.d. 547, and which, though smaller, is more like it in plan
and arrangement than any other building of the class. Architecturally, in fact,
it belongs to the age of Constantine ; and the question then arises, What church
did Constantine or any one of about his age erect in Jerusalem, over a great
rock, occupjdng, practically, the whole of its central space, rising 8 or 10 feet
above its floor, and having a great cavern in its centre, but the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre ?

No answer has yet been vouchsafed to this or, indeed, to any of these
questions. The late Mr. Lewin, indeed, after stoutly maintaining that it was
absolutely impossible that the Home of the Rock could have been built by
Constantine, admits that “the Mosque,” as he calls it, “may have been built by
Constantine’s successors, still in the first half of the fourth century.” 1 To him,
as to a writer in the ‘ Edinburgh Review,’ as, indeed, to most Englishmen, “ Its
architectural character remains at most only a strange and perplexing difficulty.” 2
He, however, wholly omits to notice the second, which is the important part of
the proposition. Constantine’s successors built many churches, no doubt ; but
there is only one in the whole world, so far as I know, the floor of which is
occupied by such a rock as this, and on the existence of this rock hangs the
whole question. The other controversionalists simply evade the question, and
trust that the ignorance of their readers will be sufficient to prevent their
perceiving the omission.

With regard to the Golden Gateway, the case is even stronger. Though
placed in the city wall, it is not a city gate. It is not fortified, nor capable of
defence. It is, in fact, a festal portal, leading to some sacred or secular building,
and forming a part of some grand architectural arrangement. It is a beautiful
and very richly ornamented building, in the same style as the Dome of the Rock ;
what little difference there is, may easily be accounted for from the greater con
servatism always maintained in sacred as compared with secular or quasi-secular
buildings like this one. The question here, therefore, is, Why was this festal
portal placed where we find it, and by whom ? No Englishman, so far as I
know, has ever attempted to answer this question ; they simply evade it.
The Count de Vogue, alone, has fairly faced it. He admits that it was built by
Christians between the fourth and sixth centuries ; and his explanation is that it
was erected by some person or persons unknown, who, believing it to be the
Porta Speciosa — the Beautiful Gate — of the Temple, re-erected it as such, because
St. Peter and St. John had therein cured the lame man.3

1 A Sketch of Jerusalem, p. 150.

2 Edinburgh Review, October_1860.

3 Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 64,

196 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Pakt III.

If anyone likes to accept sucli an explanation, lie is welcome. To me
the hypothesis seems so obviously untenable that I decline to enter upon it
here, hut prefer relegating my reasons for rejecting it to the Appendix, where
they will be found in my examination of the Count de Vogue’s theory of the
Haram area.

It would be paying the late Professor Willis a very bad compliment to say
he did not know that the architecture of the gate was of the age of Constantine.
He never said it was not, but as his admitting this would have been fatal to
all his views regarding the Holy Sepulchre, he took refuge in a passage in
Eusebius, which saved his conscience, and, he thought, justified him in asserting
that my views were “ ludicrously impossible.” 1 It is said by that author that the
gateway of the Basilica opened on a broad agora — £77’ avrrjs gecrg<5 7r\aTeia9
ayopas. It now opens externally on a cemetery, and, as may be admitted, where
there is now no room for a broad agora.

The great American, Dr. Edward Robinson, improves on this, and proves
at once the absurdity of my views by inserting two definite articles into the
text of Eusebius, and, consequently, making him say that the Propylosa opened
on the Street of the Bazaars.2 3 He knew, of course, that he was stating what
was not true when he put these words into the mouth of Eusebius, and it
seems all the more strange that he should have condescended to this as he had
not even the excuse of religous zeal to justify the misrepresentation. Like most
of the better class of topographers who have written about Jerusalem, he had
felt constrained to admit that the present sepulchre in the town could not be the
true one, and that it was, consequently, a manifest imposture.

As it now turns out, the answer to these objections is twofold. In the first
place, Captain Warren discovered a terrace wall at a distance of more than
50 feet in front of the Golden Gateway, which he traced some way north and
south, but could not penetrate.4 It was, from its style, as early as, if not earlier
than, the wall on either side of the gateway, and, a fortiori, than the gateway
itself, and may, consequently, have supported the market-place of which the
historian speaks. But this is not, I believe, the true explanation ; for, as we
shall presently see, the gateway opened inwards, not outwards on the “ broad
agora,” for which there was ample space and to spare. I am, nevertheless,
quite prepared to admit that this was a difficulty, though a very small one, when
weighed against the evidence on the other side. At best it was merely negative,
and such as might very well wait for further examination, while the architecture
gave a positive testimony patent to all who could read its language, and which
could not be altered and gainsaid. However, as even this small objection has

1 Holy Sepulchre, 1849, p. 122.

2 Later Biblical Researches in Palestine, 1852, p. 263.

3 Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. ii. p. 80.

4 Recovery of Jerusalem, pp. 157 et seqq. Quarterly
Reports, P. E. F. 1869, pjp. 104 et seq.

Chap. I.

INTRODUCTORY.

197

now been removed, there is nothing, so far as I was then, or am now, aware of,
to prevent us admitting at once that the Dome of the Bock and the Golden
Gateway were erected in the age of Constantine, and if this is admitted, the
result seems inevitable. They must be what I have always stated they were,
the Anastasis and the Propyliea described by Eusebius. It only, consequently,
remains to point out how far recent researches or investigations on the spot
have confirmed or invalidated these conclusions.

Another strong point in these discussions, which I have always insisted
upon, is the difficulty of assigning any reasonable motive for Justinian’s con-
duct, in placing his Mary Church where he did, if it were not that he wished
it to be in immediate proximity to the other Christian sites.

The spot he chose — the south-east angle of the Haram — is avowedly the
most restricted and the most expensive for his purposes that could be found
in or about Jerusalem. Procopius leaves us in no doubt on the subject.1 Yet,
as he states the case, Justinian braved all these difficulties without any ajiparent
motive — or, in other words, for some motive so manifestly apparent to everybody,
that it was not necessary for him to mention it. If it was, as I believe, that his
church might form one of a group of Christian edifices which already existed
in the Haram arei, his conduct is easily intelligible and perfectly consistent.
If he had any other motive, it was, as far as we can see, that of a madman.
No one, however, has yet, so far as I know, ventured to suggest any reason,
however eccentric, for this conduct on his part. It is one of those questions
which all have agreed it is better to leave alone, trusting that silence may
prevent attention being drawn towards it.

If this cause could be brought before any competent tribunal, a judge
would insist on a categorical answer being given to each and all of these
enquiries, and, if none were offered, would unhesitatingly order judgment to
be entered against the defenders of the so-called Holy Sepulchre in the town.
Unfortunately, no such tribunal exists, and no attempt has ever been made to
obtain a dispassionate decision from those competent to form an opinion. On
the contrary, the controversy has generally been carried on by one-sided
advocates, who, under the anonymous mask, assert things they would not dare
to hint at in their own names, and who, multiplying themselves indefinitely
in periodical publications, keep up a clamour that imposes on the public, and
stifles, for a while at least, the voice of reason, the excuse being — as just hinted
at — that it is inexpedient to unsettle a tradition of eight centuries’ standing ;
that it is better to cling to what we have than to strive after something we
do not feel sure we shall ever attain.

1 See Appendix II.

198 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Part III.

If, consequently, I now again revert to the subject, it is not with any
idea that my views will obtain a fair appreciation. I do it more for my
own personal satisfaction, being absolutely convinced that, as the evidence
at present stands, no other conclusions than those I have arrived at can
be for one moment maintained. Of course, new evidence may be brought
forward, of which I know nothing, and new discoveries may be made which
may alter the whole aspect of the case. For that neither I nor any one else
can be held responsible. But after carefully examining and testing every
local indication, and every written testimony that is at present available, it
appears to me that few things are more clearly proved than that the Dome
of the Rock is the identical church Constantine erected over, what he
believed to be, the Sepulchre of Christ. If this is so, all the subsidiary
questions connected with the subject sink into insignificance, and are scarcely
worthy of lengthened consideration ; but it may nevertheless be as well to
revert again to some of those which have hitherto seemed to present difficulties
to the reception of the above conclusions.

48. — Plan of the Dome of the Eock.

(From a drawing by F. Cathenvood. Scale, 100 feet to 1 inch.)

Chap. II.

THE DOME OF THE EOCK.

199

CHAPTER II.

THE DOME OF THE EOCK.

One of the most interesting architectural discoveries made recently in the
Haram area resulted from some repairs undertaken in 1873 in the Dome of
the Rock. On the west face of that building, where it is exposed to the
influence of the moist air from the sea, the tiles with which the whole of the
upper part of the external walls are covered had become loosened, and in many
parts detached, so as to show the plain wall beneath. The whole, in fact, had
become so ruinous that the Turkish governor determined to strip the entire
face, and replace the old with new tiles where necessary. When this was
done, the whole of the original masonry was exposed to view, and was
found to consist of a series of round arches — five pierced for windows and
two blind panels — on the principal floor. This, however, was known before ;
indeed, it had been generally admitted that the pointed arches and their
frames were inserted when the tiles were first applied, in the age of Suliman
the Magnificent, in the sixteenth century. What was really new, however, was
the discovery that the parapet wall above the principal range of windows, which
had always been believed to be solid, was, in reality, composed of a range of
thirteen small arches on each face, each arch being adorned with a small
dwarf pillar on each side. It may be assumed, as certain, that this arcade
formed the front of a covered gallery, not only because no other view seems
consistent with commonsense, but because the description of it by John of Wurz-
burg, made in the time of the Crusades, will bear no other interpretation.1 It
is not, however, now easy to determine whether its roof formed, as it does
now, one uniform slope from the drum of the great dome to the outer
wall of the octagon, or whether there was not a central depression something-
like that of the circular church of Santi Angeli at Perugia, a building very
similar in plan and arrangement to the Dome of the Rock, and almost
certainly belonging to the fourth century.2 My own impression is that' the
roof was in two slopes, with a depression in the centre ; otherwise it would
be difficult to account for the position of the gargoyles or spouts to carry

1 Tobler’s edition, p. 126. I entirely agree with the

translation of this somewhat obscure passage suggested
by M. Ganneau, Quarterly Eeports, P. E. F. 1874, p. 157.
It does not seem possible to reconcile the facts with

any other interpretation.

2 Isabelle, folifices circulates, p. 85, pi. xxxviii.
See also my History of Architecture, vol. i. p. 432,
woodcuts 297, 298.

200 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Pakt III.

off the water, which are on the level of the gallery floor. Possibly a
careful examination of the construction between the internal ceiling and the
external roof might reveal how this was ; but as this is of the least possible
consequence for our present purpose, it is needless dwelling further upon
it here.

49. — Elevation and Section of the Flank of the Dome of the Rock.
(From the Quarterly Reports of the Palestine Exploration Fund.)

With this explanation, the general appearance of the building, as it was
originally constructed, will be easily understood from the annexed woodcuts,
kindly placed at my disposal by the Committee of the Palestine Exploration
Fund.1 There was, first, the marble-cased basement, 16 feet high, pierced only

Quarterly Reports, P. E. F. 1874, pp. 154, 155.

Chap. II.

THE DOME OF THE ROCK.

201

by the four doors ; then a storey of plain masonry, 20 feet in height, and
pierced by five round-headed windows on each face ; above this, a gallery 10
feet high in front, with thirteen small arches with the dwarf pillars, which
are undoubtedly coeval with, and of the same masonry as, the storey below.

The first question that arises in looking at this elevation is, Is it Saracenic ?
or, in other words, is there anywhere a building erected by the Moslems in
this style ? An absolute answer cannot, of course, be given to this question,
because it may happen, that some building may be found in some part of the
world which may resemble this one. But it can be answered positively that,
so far as is at present known, no building at all resembling it in style is known

ELEVATION

PLAN

SECTION

50. — Upper Gallery, Dome of the Rock. (From the Quarterly Reports of the Palestine Exploration Fund.)

to exist anywhere, erected either in the first or any other century of the Hegira.
The means of comparison are, it must be confessed, few, and not much to the
point. Almost the only building which retains any of its ancient features,
erected between 622 and 700 a.d., is the mosque of Amrou, at Cairo. Assuming
this to be the case,1 2 it may safely be asserted that it has absolutely nothing in
common with this design. But to this it may be objected that the Egyptian
example is a mosque, and that this one at Jerusalem is a tomb or tomblike
building, which is true ; but we have no tombs or tomblike buildings erected by

1 The best illustrations of this mosque I know of are those by Girault de Rrangey, Monuments arabes, pis. vi.
and v. The drawings were made before the late rebuilding, which has obliterated all the ancient features.

2 D

202

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Pakt III.

Saracens in the first and second centuries of the Hegira, and no reason for
supposing that they erected any; so that, as far as that argument goes, it
tells against the idea of this building being Saracenic.

A more pertinent question, however, is, Hoes this external face of the
Home of the Rock resemble the design of the Aksa in any way ? For if it was
not built by the Christians, all admit that it must have been built by Abd-el-
Malek, who also built the Aksa. Naturally, we should expect that, in two
buildings erected in the same age by one man, and as parts of one design,
there should be some points of resemblance ; absolutely, there are none.
Again, it may be objected that the exterior of the Aksa has been so altered
and changed that its original form is hardly recognisable externally. To some
extent, this is true, but not to such an extent as to vitiate the argument; but
the point is not so important as it might at first sight appear, as it is the
internal and not the external form that makes the difference in age, between
the two buildings, so clearly apparent.

The building, we know of, that is nearest to the Aksa in date and
design is the mosque at Cordova, commenced by the khalif Abd-el-Rahman,
in a.d. 786, and completed by his son Hesham, who died a.d. 796. As originally
erected, it was an eleven-aisled basilica, not unlike the seven-aisled Aksa, the
seven central aisles in the Spanish example occupying, as nearly as possible,
the same width as at Jerusalem ; the two outer ones being apparently added
at Cordova in order to gratify the ambition of its founder, who is said to
have desired that his mosque should surpass that of Abd-el-Malek, which, in
fact, it does, both in size and design ; great progress in the art of
architecture having been achieved by the Saracens in the century that
elapsed between the erection of these two buildings. Between the Aksa
and the mosque at Cordova, there are resemblances, but there is nothing
in the one or in other that presents any points of contact with the
Home of the Rock. To my mind, centuries must have elapsed between the
erection of these two buildings. If others see resemblances between them,
all that can at present be said is that they have not yet been brought forward,
or pointed out by any one.

Is the architecture of the exterior of the Home of the Rock Christian ?
The absence of any distinctly recognisable architectural mouldings renders the
answer to this question less absolute than it might be, but it is easy to
reply that all its features are found in the Christian architecture of the fourth
century, and that there is nothing whatever in it at all antagonistic to the
idea that it belongs to the Christians and to that age.

In the first place, the art of veneering the surface of their walls with
marble slabs was extensively practised by the Romans in their thermal and
other secular buildings; and this mode of decoration continued to be employed

Chap. II.

THE DOME OF THE ROCK.

203

by the Byzantines down to the building of Santa Sophia, the interior of which
is, to a considerabe extent, so adorned. The patterns here employed are also
such as are generally found in classical or Byzantine work, and, so far as I
know, such as were never employed in Saracenic work. Indeed, though they
used coloured tiles extensively, I cannot call to mind a single instance of the
Moslems using a marble veneer to their edifices anterior to the Crusades.

The forms and masonry of the middle storey are just such as we would expect
to find in a building of the fourth century. The surface of the stonework has
been, however, considerably defaced by the Moslems, who purposely roughed it, to
get a tooth for the plaster which was to support their tiles ; but the joints and
the whole constructive arrangements are in accordance with the practice of the
Romans at that age, though there is, perhaps, nothing sufficiently distinctive in
this to prove the case. The argument must consequently principally rest on the
arcade and its little columns. Are they Christian ? The answer seems distinct
and final.

51. — Gallery op Sant’ Ambrogio. (From Hiibsch.)

Any one who is at all familiar with the subject will at once call to mind
hundreds — I might almost say thousands — of such galleries adorning the apses of
churches between Pavia and Cologne, or rather between the Po and the Northern
Sea. Indeed, there is hardly a church of any importance in the North of Italy or
of Germany that is not so adorned from the earliest time at which Christian
churches were built down, at least, to the thirteenth century. The only question
is, when were they first introduced ? It is, and always must be, extremely
difficult to find any examples before, or even as early as, the time of Constantine,
as he was practically the first Christian church builder ; but there are two
churches in Milan, both built by St. Ambrosius in the fourth century, in which
we find the system fully developed. The first is the church now bearing
his name, the apse of which is undoubtedly a part, almost the only part, of
the original construction, and it has a gallery under its roof. It is in brick-
work, and on a smaller scale ; but, as will be seen from the above woodcut,

204

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

in other respects almost identical with this one. Inside this apse is a mosaic
that cannot be more modern than the age of the second Angilbertus (835 a.d.),
and most probably belongs to the age of the first archbishop of that name
(530 a.d.). In it there is a representation of the building as it then was,
and in it this gallery is clearly and easily recognisable.1

There is, also in Milan, another church, San Nazaro, built in 382 a.d.,
which is even more to the point than Sant’ Ambrogio, or rather would be,
were it not that it has been so knocked about and altered that it is not easy
now to make out what is new and what old. It has, however, absidal galleries
externally, and internally columns with capitals identical with those of the little
dwarf columns of this gallery.2

There is a third church at Milan, San Lorenzo, with its side chapel,
S. Aquilino, which belongs also to the fourth century, and has galleries of this
sort, parts of which belong to the original foundation, though in others they
are only renewals of what has been destroyed.3 Other examples are quoted
by Hubsch, and are to be found elsewhere, till we come down to the times of
the Longobardi, and find such churches as that of Santa Julia at Brescia,
said to have been built by Theodolinda about the year GOO.4 There, however,
the gallery is supported by regular shafts, with capitals and all the refinements

used in Rhenish and Pavian churches in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries. This invention, in fact, which was
first thought of, probably, about the year 300, and per-
fected three centuries afterwards, continued to be used by
Christians for six or seven centuries longer, but, so far
as I know, never in Saracenic art.

Next to the capitals and pillars found in the church
of San Nazaro, just alluded to, the most perfect specimens
of the class of small pillars, belonging to this gallery, are
to be found in the cistern of Philoxenus, now the Bin
Bir Derek at Constantinople, which is generally assumed
to have been the work of Constantine or of his age,
and on data which I do not think can be doubted.5
It certainly, at all events, is one of the oldest and most
important cisterns in the city, and occupies one of the
most important sites. Most of the pillars in this cistern have capitals similar
to that represented in the annexed woodcut, and they are so nearly identical

52. — Capital from
Cistern of Piiiloxenus
at Constantinople.
(From Hubsch.)

1 Ferrario, St. Ambrogio, Milano, 1824. PI. 24.

2 These statements are made on the authority of
Hubsch, Altchristliche Bamverke, pi. xli. pp. 97, 98.
I see no reason for doubting their perfect correctness.

3 Hiibsch, Altchristliche Bauwerke, pi. xiv. pp. 21

ct seqq.

4 Hubsch, Altchristliche Bauwerke, pi. xl. p. 97.

5 Salzenberg, Altchristliche Bauwerke Constanti-
nople’s, p. 38, pi. xxxviii. See also Du Cange, Con-
stantinopolis Christiana, lib. i. p. 96 and lib. ii. p. 132 ;
and Gylius, lib. ii. chap. xxv.

Chap. II.

THE DOME OF THE ROCK.

205

with those attached to the gallery of the Dome of the Rock 1 that they cannot
differ much, if at all, from each other in age.2

Among the various churches illustrated by the Count de Vogue, in his
beautiful work on ‘ Syrie Centrale,’ the cathedral at Bosrah was apparently the
only one that was so arranged as to admit of its possessing a gallery of this
sort. The apses of the others were apparently too small for its introduction,
but in this instance not only the scale but the arrange-
ments of the building were such as to demand something
of the kind. The plan here given is taken from M. Rey,3
and is practically identical with that by M. de Vogue,
except that all the internal arrangements are omitted.

The section on the following page is copied from one by the
Count, and conveys a very perfect and complete idea of
its internal arrangements. Its principal interest to us here
is what any one will perceive at a glance, that it is a literal
copy, on a slightly smaller scale — 120 against 150 feet — of
the Dome of the Rock at Jerusalem (Plate VI.) ; with only
such alterations as were indispensable to adapt a tomblike
building to one suited for congregational purposes. The
first change was to convert the octagonal ground plan into

a square, but that was what was being done by the Byzantine architects every-
where during the interval that elapsed between the erection of these two
buildings.4 The next change was to get rid of the central circle surrounding the
Rock at Jerusalem, but no longer wanted here, and then to bring forward the
eight piers of the outer octagon, each with their two pillars between them.
Instead, however, of a tie-beam with an arch to each pillar, a greater familiarity
with the style enabled the architects to throw one bold arch over the whole,
and to convert what was only an ornament at Jerusalem into a useful gallery
at Bosrah.5 This was also an improvement on the corresponding gallery at
Jerusalem — which is the one just discovered — as it makes the gallery an integral
part of the church, instead of a mere external ornament.

53. — Plan of
Cathedral at Bosrah.
(From M. Rey.)

(Scale, 100 feet to 1 inch.)

1 The pillars of the Porta Nigra at Treves, which is
almost undoubtedly a building of Constantine’s age,
were all apparently intended to have capitals of this
class. None of them, however, have been finished, and
it is consequently impossible to base any arguments on
their forms. It is only an architect who can see what
was intended by the blocks that remain, while a layman
would be perfectly justified in contending that it might
be something else that was originally proposed.

2 On the 31st plate of his great work on Old Christian

Churches, Hubsch engraved a plan of the Church of the

Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, which he believed to be

the one in the city ; and in the same plate, figs. 6 and 7,

he engraved a plan and elevation of one of those pillars
from the Bin Bir Derek, as authentic examples of the
work of Constantine to be used in the restoration. Had
he known that similar capitals were hidden beneath
the tiles of buildings within a few hundred yards of
that site, it probably would have altered materially his
views on the subject.

3 History of Architecture, vol. ii. p. 439.

4 History of Architecture, vol. ii. p. 440.

5 If Count de Vogue had been an architect, he would
have known that the stone dome he places over the
centre of the church would not have stood for an hour.
The roof must have been wood, probably conical.

206

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

From inscriptions on the walls, it was ascertained that this church was
completed in 512 a.d. When it was commenced, we are not told, probably ten
or twenty years earlier ; but be this as it may, it would be difficult to find
anywhere a more complete and interesting example of architectural develop-
ment than is exhibited by the changes introduced at Bosrali on the designs
of a church erected 170 or 180 years earlier at Jerusalem. So evident, indeed,
is this that, if De Vogue’s section is to be depended upon — and I see no
reason for doubting its general correctness — it ought nearly to suffice for settling
this question. It is quite impossible that the section of the Dome of the Rock as
shown on Plate VI. could be copied from that of the cathedral at Bosrah, but the

54. — Section of Dome at Bosrah. (Facsimile ot one in Count de Vogue’s Syrie Centrale, p. 64.)

(For comparison with section of Dome of the Rock, Plate VI.)

converse appears clear and certain. The two buildings are in the same style,
and so like one another, and their connexion is so intimate, that their relative
ages are as nearly certain as anything of the sort can well be.

The removal of the tiles from the upper part of the external walls of
the Dome of the Rock, besides revealing the existence of the arcades, disclosed
also another fact, which, when published and properly investigated, may have an
important bearing on the history of the edifice. In a letter to the Committee
of the Palestine Exploration Fund, dated May 31, 1874, M. Ganneau announced
that he had discovered that some, at least, of the arcades of the upper storey
had at one time been formed into semicircular niches, with semi-domical
heads, and that the upper parts, at least, had been adorned with mosaics.

Chap. II.

THE DOME OF THE ROCK.

207

Whether the perpendicular parts were also so ornamented, we are not told.
In one niche, the marks only of the tesserm were found, but in the adjacent
one the remains were sufficiently perfect to enable M. Lecomte to make a
complete coloured drawing of its details, the correctness of which I see no
reason for doubting. If the drawing had been submitted to me without any
intimation of where it came from, I should have unhesitatingly pronounced it
late Roman or Byzantine, though I fully admit the difficulty of feeling certain
on such a point. Mosaics do not show any signs of age in themselves, and
the same patterns, or others nearly similar, are repeated over and over again,
so that without emblems or figures it is difficult to base any reasoning on
the abstract question. M. G-anneau thinks they belong to the age of Saladin,1
merely, it seems, because he did not know to whom else to ascribe them.
To me, however, it appears extremely unlikely that, if Saladin or any Maho-
medan prince had wanted merely to block up these arches to display a mosaic
decoration, he should have taken the trouble to form them into niches with
semi-domical heads ; few things are more difficult than to adapt a geometric
pattern to such a form ; it must always look contorted, and, when done, it
would always be in shade, and at that height almost invisible. What he almost
inevitably would have done would have been to close the niche with a flat slab on
which to display his mosaic, which, in Saladin's time, would, probably, have been
a floral design, far more easily executed than that now ‘found there, and, as an
architectural decoration, infinitely more effective. Whoever formed these niches,
it seems to me almost certain that they intended to place statues in them, or
some free-standing ornament ; and from the position of the gargoyles or spouts, it
seems most probable that they were coeval with the erection of the building, and
that the drainage of the building was carried below them, so that the drip might
not damage the mosaics, as it inevitably would have done if carried above them.

If they were all niches, and their perpendicular backs carried down to
the bottom of the arcades, there would, of course, be an end of the gallery
theory, and we must look for some other explanation ; but in so far as I
can understand M. Lecomte’s drawings, this is not so. Some may have been
so, but in others it was only the circular part that was filled in, the square
below being left open, and others were apparently without even the semi-dome.
In fact, till we have more knowledge than we now possess, it is impossible
to put forward, or to criticise any theory with any degree of confidence. All
I can at present say is, that I know nothing of any building ornamented
with mosaics externally by any Moslem architect in any age or any part of
the world, and that, on the other hand, I see nothing to render it improbable
that these mosaics may not be part of the original design of the building,
assuming it to have been erected in the fourth century.

1 Quarterly Reports of the Palestine Exploration Fund for 1874, p. 263.

208

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

Interior.

Although the evidence derived from a comparison of the exterior of the
Dome of the Rock, when compared with that of the Aksa, is tolerably
conclusive as to their relative ages, and of the time that must have elapsed
between their erection, that derived from their interiors is ten times more so.
In the Dome of the Rock all the constructive arches are circular ; in the
mosque they are all pointed. All the capitals in the first-named building

55. — View in Aisle op the Dome of the Rock.

56. — View in the Interior op the Aksa.

(From a drawing by Arundale.)

are of the Corinthian order, with concave curves to their bell-shaped capitals, and
so classical in detail that none such could have been used except borrowed
from older buildings after Justinian’s time. In the Aksa there is not a single
pillar — unless one or two borrowed ones — which was invented before Justinian’s
age ; generally they have convex basket capitals, and those with foliage are of
a debased character, wholly unlike those of the Dome. But the greatest con-
trast is exhibited in their design. Everything in the Dome is elegant and
well-proportioned, and everything suitable to the place where it is found. I do

Chap. II.

THE DOME OF THE ROCK.

209

not indeed know of any tomb or tomblike building in the whole world so
beautiful, or so entirely satisfactory, as the Dome of tlie Rock — at least none
erected before the great Indian mausolea of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.
The Aksa, on the other hand, is badly designed, worse proportioned, and
its details detestable. It betrays in every feature the efforts of a rude
unskilful people, attempting to imitate the work of a superior race, which they
were incapable either of understanding or appreciating. So evident indeed is
this that, if there is any foundation for the theory of architectural develop-
ment, it seems quite certain that these two buildings were erected not only
by different races, but at long distant periods of time.

There is of course considerable difficulty in making this difference quite
clear either to those who have not been on the spot, and had an opportunity
of comparing the two buildings, or to those whose eyes are not sufficiently
educated in the styles to detect the characteristics that are so obvious to those
who are familiar with the subject. Yet it seems impossible that anyone can
look at the two last woodcuts and not perceive the differences between them.
This, however, is still more apparent from a comparison of the plates in my
work on the ‘ Topography of Jerusalem,’ from the illustrations of which these
cuts are reduced, or, better still, from the plates in De Vogue’s great work on
the Temple, especially plates xix. and xxxi., without perceiving how very
unlike the one is to the other. Photographs also are available,1 and any
one who will take the pains to go through this evidence must, I fancy, arrive
at the conclusion that a long interval of time separates these two buildings,
and that the Dome of the Rock is the oldest and by far the most classical
in style of the two.

Before the period of the recent repairs, no one probably expected much
from any examination of the construction of the exterior of the Dome of the
Rock, but I, and probably others, had hopes that, when an opportunity was
afforded of examining the complicated structure of the interior, something
might be disclosed that would reveal the history of its erection. I, for
one, felt certain that, if we were only allowed to remove the plain marble
slabs that now surmount the capitals of the intermediate range of columns,
we should find beneath them, the original blocks that were hidden hy this
placage , and if we did, we should find engraved on them either a cross
or some Christian emblem, that would tell us what we wanted to know ;
but in order to explain the reason for this belief, it is necessary to go back
a little.

When, in the time of Diocletian, architects first began to tamper with
the stereotyped forms of the Roman Corinthian order, they left the cornice

1 Two taken by Lieutenant Kitchener, representing these two interiors, were published by the Palestine
Exploration Fund, and in themselves ought to be sufficient to settle the question.

2 E

210

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

and frieze for a long time pretty much as they found them. They pulvinated
the frieze — or, in other words, curved it outwards — and carved it richly, to
supply the place of the figures which were its original and proper ornament ;
and they omitted some details of the cornice, but the great alteration was
made in the architrave. When using arches, as in the court at Spalatro,1
they bent the architrave as an archivolt, round the arches, leaving the
frieze and cornice as before ; but when using a trabeate or horizontal con-
struction, they omitted the architrave altogether, except one block of it

57. — Court in Diocletian’s Palace at Spalatro. (From a sketch by Sir Gardner Wilkinson.)

over the capital, and afterwards, even in arched construction, used this
block in order to give apparent strength to the capital to support the
arches, and continued this practice down nearly to the time of Justinian.
In his age, however, the invention of convex capitals enabled the architects
to dispense with this ; their fulness being sufficient to give the requisite
appearance of strength. In the intermediate period, however, the architects

Adams, Palace of Diocletian, plates xviii., xx. et passim.

Chap. II.

THE DOME OF THE EOCK.

211

almost invariably engraved either a cross or a Christian emblem of this
de, or cubical block, as in the subjoined example from Thessalonica, dating about
the year 500 a.d., and this practice became almost universal in the churches
at Ravenna and elsewhere. When the Byzantine style was completed under
Justinian, the de was omitted, and the cross or monogram was transferred to
the capital, which had then become convex, instead of concave, and, in fact,
belonged to a totally different style of architecture from that which is found
in the buildings of Constantine at Jerusalem. This may be seen from the two
illustrations on the next page, taken from the Church of Santa Sophia at Con-
stantinople, which only retains a very slight reminiscence of the Corinthian
capital, and from which all traces of the classical entablature have been almost
entirely banished.

58. — Aecade prom Church of St. Demetrius at Thessalonica, a.d. 500-520.

It is easy for any one to see at a glance how far the style employed in
the Santa Sophia had deviated from that found in the Dome of the Rock before
these capitals were executed ; but it was after their time that the Aksa was
built, and, according to the usually accepted theory, the Dome of the Rock
also. As the Dome of the Rock was one of the examples in which this
transitional style of architecture was first introduced, we might hope that there
also this mode of engraving crosses or emblems on the blocks surmounting the
capitals would be found, though it might perhaps be only feebly attempted.
As will be presently explained, this hope has been disappointed. The de is
a rough block of stone, unhewn and without any ornament at all. The fact,
however, evidently is, that it was ornamented by bronze plates on its four faces,
and these have been removed with the ornaments upon them, whatever they
may have been, and replaced by the marble slabs we now find there.

212 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Part III.

The proof that the ornamentation of this part was in bronze will be
found in the fact that the sofit of the intermediate entablature, and part of

59. — Capital, Santa Sophia, Constantinople,

60. — Capital, Santa Sophia at Constantinople.
(From Salzenberg.)

the sides is still in bronze repousse work of a very elaborate and beautiful
class. One of the parts is shown in the annexed woodcut. This has so

61. — Bronze Plaque prom Underside of Beam, Dome of the Rock. (From De VogW, plate xxii.)

antique an appearance that, if such a thing were possible, I would be half
inclined to fancy it might have been borrowed from Herod’s Temple, or,

Chap. II.

THE DOME OP THE EOCK.

213

62. — Capital and Entablature op Intermediate Range op Pillars, Dome of the Rock.
(From a drawing by M. Lecomte, Quarterly Reports, P. E. F. 1874, p. 139.)

at all events, from some building anterior to a.d. 70. 1 That, however,
it cannot be, and the vine, in fact, is here used, as it is in frescos in
the Catacombs, or in mosaics of the contemporary tomb of Santa Costanza at

1 Its ornamentation, in fact, resembles more closely that of the lid of Herod’s sarcophagus (woodcut No. 36)
than any other piece of sculpture I am acquainted with.

214

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

Rome. If it ever was used by any Moslem architect, in any part of the world,
this has escaped my attention. If it does exist, perhaps some one will say
where.

The arrangement of this entablature will be best understood from the
woodcut on the preceding page, made from a drawing by M. Lecomte during the
late repairs. The capital is undoubtedly of the age of Constantine. It is one
of the very first attempts to convert the hollow bowl of the Corinthian
capital into a fuller form, to bear an arch or a longer entablature. It is,
however, a very long time anterior to the full development of this idea
shown in the two woodcuts Nos. 59 and 60. Above this is shown, as just
mentioned, the rude de, a square block, now cased with plain marble slabs,
but which, originally, must have been cased with bronze plates, like the
underside of the wooden beam which it supports. The wooden cornice
appears above this, ornamented with small rosettes, apparently original.
Above this, the marble casing again appears fastened to the woodwork
underneath by iron clamps. No part of this seems to have been removed
during the repairs ; so we do not know what these slabs cover in the parts
represented in the above illustration (woodcut rNo. 62), but in other parts
it is by the very beautiful frieze and cornice represented by De Vogue, in his
plate xx., and shown, though less perfectly, in the woodcut on the opposite page
(No. 63). 1 It is not quite classical, but it is just as far removed from the pure
types of Roman architecture as the capital shown in the last woodcut (No. 62),
and, if there is any basis for the theory of architectural development, the
entablature is as certainly of the time of Constantine. To assert that this capital
or this cornice is the work of Abd-el-Malek, at the end of the seventh century —
a century and a half after Justinian — is to cast on one side all we know of
the history of the style, and to deny the first principles of the science of
architectural development.

The fact is that every form and every detail of this entablature accords
minutely with the assumption that it belongs to the fourth century, while it does
not accord with anything found in any Mahornedan building of any age or
country. It is true, it has been said, that the Saracens used beams of wood
to connect their arches in the mosque of Amrou at Cairo, and elsewhere.
These, however, are in all instances simple square balks of timber with
6 or 12 inches section used as tie-beams, to resist the thrust of their badly
constructed arches, in the same manner as iron tie-rods were used in Italy
and in Asia for the same purpose down to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries.
No such highly ornamented beams as those of the Dome of the Rock exist
anywhere that I know of. The thing most like it, probably, is the tie-beam

1 So far as I can make out, the woodcut No. 61 represents the outer face of the entablature. It is only on
the inner face that the classical frieze and cornice exists.

Chap. II.

THE DOME OF THE EOCK.

215

oh each side of the nave of the Aksa, hut it is so evidently a barbarous attempt
to copy that in the Kubbet es Sakhra that its evidence is one of the best proofs
how little Abd-el-Malek’s architects knew what they were doing, and how
completely, having no style of their own, they were trying their ’prentice hands
on a style they did not understand.

The capital of the pillars shown in the woodcut below (No. 63) is, as just
mentioned, another proof, if any were wanted, to show that this whole system
of decoration belongs to the age of Constantine. In the fourth century the
Christian architects were trying to apply to their interiors that magnificence

63. — Capital and Cop.nice op the Intermediate Range of Columns in the Dome op the Rock.

(From a drawing by Arundale.)

which their pagan predecessors had lavished on their exteriors, and in coo-
sequence found it necessary to introduce much wider spacing than formerly.
Whether this was done by arches, as was attempted at Spalatro (woodcut No. 57),
and became universal afterwards, or by a light horizontal entablature, as
here attempted, a much greater weight than formerly was thrown on the
capital, and it hence became indispensable to strengthen it, in appearance at
least. The capitals in the Dome of the Rock are early and fine specimens
of their class, and could not have been carved before 300 a.d. nor after 500.
Their internal evidence is alone sufficient to prove this ; but, fortunately,

216

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

there are other examples, elsewhere, confirming this assumption with more
or less exactitude. The annexed example, for instance, from the Church of

St. John Studios at Constantinople, erected
a.d. 463, is extremely similar to that repre-
sented in woodcut No. 62, except that, as a
metropolitan example, it is a little more
refined, and retains some classical features
longer than in that found at Jerusalem.

As no Christian churches were destroyed
at Jerusalem between the capitulation to
Omar and the time of Abd-el-Malek, the
capitals in the Dome of the Iiock could not
have been borrowed from elsewhere, but
must be and are integral parts of the decora-
tion of the edifice in which they are found ;
and the idea, that they can be the work
of the Moslems in the last decade of the
seventh century, seems so preposterous that
the wonder is that any one can be found
to maintain it. If it is so, we had better
burn our books, and give up at once all idea
of ascertaining the age of buildings, either
Gothic or classical, from their style.

During the recent repairs, some of the
bases of these columns were uncovered by
the removal of the slabs in which, at some
subsequent period, they had been encased.
They were carefully drawn by M. Lecomte,
but have not yet been published. From
what I have seen of them, they appear singularly classical ; but he seems
to have been astonished that they were not all identical and of exactly the

same height. To me it appears that the wonder is the
other way ; I know of no building of that age where such
uniformity occurs, especially if erected by Christians-
Everywhere pagan temples were being desecrated and
destroyed ; and with the enormous wealth of materials
placed at their disposal, it seems absurd to suppose that
the Christians would quarry and carve new shafts for
every separate occasion. Even in Rome, where the supply
was superabundant, in every church and every building
of the fourth century columns and capitals and bases of
the most discrepant dimensions are found everywhere.

64. — Capital from Church of St. John
Studios at Constantinople.

05. — Baptistery of
Constantine.
(From Isabelle.)

(Scale, 100 feet to 1 inch.)

Chap. II.

THE DOME OF THE ROCK.

217

One of the most notable examples of this is found in the Lateran Baptistery,
which was certainly erected by Constantine, though it is said to have been
only finished by St. Sixtus, a century after his time, 431-440 a.d. The
truth appears to he that Sixtus restored it after it was plundered, perhaps
damaged, by Alaric. Be this as it may, it is in all essential parts an exact-
miniature counterpart of the Dome of the Rock, except that, as even Rome
could not furnish eight porphyry shafts of the same length, the taller ones
are furnished with Ionic, the shorter ones with Corinthian capitals.

10 5 0 [0 20 30 40 SO FT

66. — Section of Lateran Baptistery. (From Fleury.)

These pillars are connected together by beams identical in principle with
those we have just been describing as belonging to the Dome of the Rock, with
this only difference, that they are, at Rome, in stone, instead of being in wood,
because they had to support a vault in brickwork, instead of a flat ceiling in
wood, as at Jerusalem ; bnt barring this essential difference in construction,
the two designs are identical, and they are undoubtedly of the same age.1

1 These particulars regarding the Lateran Baptistery-
are taken from a work by G. R. de Fleury, published
in Paris, this year, by Morel. It is one of the most
conscientious as well as one of the most interesting
monographs of a mediaeval church that have appeared
of late years. The author has no theories and no bias,

and supports his statements and drawings with a
sufficient number of “pieces justificatives ” to render
them thoroughly trustworthy. It need hardly be added
that he never dreamt of the Dome of the Rock being a
Christian church.

218

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

CHAPTER III.

THE DOME OF THE ROCK.

Mosaics.

If, as mentioned above, the mosaics now existing on the exterior of the Dome
of the Rock are of too fragmentary a character to give any clear indication of
their age, those of the interior are so complete that they ought to afford satis-
factory materials for the chronological elucidation of its history. To enable this,
however, to be done, the person examining them ought to have special technical
knowledge of the subject, with access to them, so as to be able to examine
them almost by touch as well as by the eye. Messrs. Catherwood and Arundale,
who were the first who were able to approach them in modern times, had not,
perhaps, sufficient knowledge to decide the question ; but being of opinion that
the building was erected by Omar, they expressed to me their astonishment
at their classical character. It is not known whether Messrs. Granneau and
Lecomte have the technical education requisite for this purpose ; they have
not, so far as I know, expressed any opinion on the subject. We are therefore
dependent on the Count de Vogue for the materials to reason upon, in so far,
at least, as the public is concerned. In his splendid work on ‘ Le Temple de
Jerusalem,’ he devotes three coloured plates to these mosaics — one of these a
double one. The mosaics on plate xxi. he ascribes to the seventh century ; those
on plate xxii. to the eleventh century; and those on plate xxiii. to 1027 a.d.
In these determinations, however, the Count has been avowedly guided by the
Arabic inscriptions found upon them ; and as he believes these inscriptions to
be coeval with, and indeed a part of, the design, this was a perfectly legitimate
conclusion to arrive at — the only one, indeed, possible from his point of view.
Had the inscriptions, however, not been there, I am convinced that he, or
any other expert, would have arrived at conclusions diametrically opposed to
those. The mosaic scroll rising from a group of acanthus leaves (plates xx.
and xxii.) appears to me as classical as anything at Ravenna or at Santa Sophia
at Constantinople, and, taken by itself, might well be earlier. On the other hand,
the mosaics on plate xxiii. are of quite a different character, and certainly
of much more modern date. But the instantia crucis is plate xxi., where the
decoration, notwithstanding the square Kufic inscription, has not a trace of
classicality about it, and appears to be mediaeval Saracenic of any age, but
certainly after the tenth or eleventh century.

Chap. III.

THE DOME OP THE ROCK.

219

Count de Yogiie seems himself to be aware of the discrepancy between
the artistic and the epigraphic history of these mosaics, inasmuch as he says
(page 88) : — “ Les enroulements du maitre pilier de la coupole, et ceux du
tambour, rappellent certaines decorations romaines du ive siecle et particu-
lierement l’ornementation sculpte'e au tombeau de sainte Constance.” “ Les
mosaiques des bas cotes, au contraire, quoique beaucoup plus rapproche'es,
par leur dates, des temps antiques, sont d’un style plus originel — une fantaisie
plus libre, une bizarrerie plus capricieuse,” &c. “ Ces qualites se retrouvent
dans les mosaiques du xie siecle,” (those of the tambour, plate xxiii.) “mais
a un moindre degre' ; en revanche, elles sont d’un meilleur gout et d’un dessin
plus soigne.” After this he may well exclaim, “ D’oii vient cette apparente
contradiction, et comment l’expliquer?” “Nous ne connaissons pas encore
assez comple'tement l’histoire de l’art byzantin, pour pouvoir re'pondre d’une
maniere pe'remptoire.”

If, however, he had thought of turning to his own work on the ‘ Churches
of the Holy Land,’ he would have foimd at least an approximate answer. In
plates iii. and iv. of that work, he portrays with his usual fidelity the mosaics
of the church at Bethlehem. It is, of course, not quite easy to feel certain of the
identity of form in comparing the coloured plates of ‘Le Temple de Jerusalem '
with the monochromes of ‘ Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte,’ but it seems to me
impossible for any one to compare the one with the other without perceiving
that they belong to the same age. The date of the Bethlehem mosaics is
perfectly well known ; they were executed by order of Manuel Comnenus
Porphyrogenitus, between the years 1145 and 1180 a.d.,1 and if we assume
that those of the Dome of the Rock were executed by order of Saladin, after
his recovery of Jerusalem, a.d. 1187, he may have employed the identical artists,
and may have instructed them to execute similar designs, leaving out those
symbols only that -would be offensive to his co-religionists.

This, it is true, may not be sufficient to establish their date beyond cavil,
but it is certainly enough to make out a prima facie case for placing the date
of these mosaics towards the end of the twelfth century. It is so conclusive
to my mind that, if it were only the artistic question that was involved, J
would not care to pursue the enquiry further ; but mixed up with these
mosaics, and apparently an integral part of them, is a great inscription, which
both the Count de Yogiie 2 and Mr. Palmer 3 consider as a perfectly authentic
document of the seventh century, recording the erection of the Dome of the Rock,
by Abd-el-Malek, in the year 72 h. (a.d. 691). They consequently consider
it as an absolute proof of the correctness of their views regarding the date
of the building, and as quite fatal to any attempt to prove that it was built

1 Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte, p. 99. 2 Le Temple de Jerusalem, pp. 84 et segrq.

3 Quarterly Reports, P. E. F. for 1870, p. 164.

220

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

by Constantine or any one else. I, on the contrary, believe it to be a manifest
forgery : in the first place, because I have the most unbounded faith in the
architectural argument when it speaks so clearly as it does in the present
instance. I trust to it beyond all others, because I do not know one single
instance, in any part of the world or in any age anterior to the Reformation
in Europe, where it speaks falsely, and where its testimony may not be
implicitly relied upon. On the other hand, nothing is so easily forged as an
inscription, especially in mosaic, and nothing more likely than that a forgery
should be attempted in a place like Jerusalem, where sectarian jealousies ran
so high, and in a building which has so often changed hands as the Dome
of the Rock. Unless, therefore, it can be proved on perfectly irrefragable
evidence that these mosaic inscriptions are what they profess to be, I for one
would have no hesitation in rejecting their evidence, even if I could not
prove them to be forgeries, which from the very nature of the case it may
be difficult to do in a perfectly complete or satisfactory manner.

So far as I can make out the history of these inscriptions, it is as
follows. We learn from William of Tyre that, when the Crusaders reached
Jerusalem, they found the Mosque of Omar covered with inscriptions in the
ancient Kufic characters, one of which stated that the building had been
erected by Omar, the son of Katab, the third khalif, and giving an account
of expenses and motives of the erection.1 That inscription, however, seems to
have disappeared during the Christian occupation, inasmuch as we have a
most minute and detailed account of the building by John of Wurzburg, and by
Theodoricus, both writing about the year 1180 ; and while they make no mention
of this or any other Arabic inscriptions about the building, they copied and
report a number of Latin inscriptions in mosaic which adorned the building
both inside and outside. Outside, for instance, Theodoricus, after describing
the lower storey with its noble marble incrustation, mentions a mosaic band
under the roof, which ran all round the building,2 on the first face of which
was inscribed, “ Pax seterna ab seterno Patre sit huic domui ” ; on the second,
“Templum Domini sanctum est”; on the third, 4 Hasc est domus Domini
firmiter sedificata ” ; and so on throughout the whole eight faces, in each
of which, except the first, the building is distinctly called the Temple of “our
Lord,” meaning Christ, so as to distinguish it carefully from the Templum
Salornonis close at hand.

“ Extant porro in eodem Templi asdificio, intus et
extra ex opere Musaico, Arabici idiomatis literarum
vetustissima monumenta, quod illius temporis esse
creduntur. Quibus et auctor et impensarum quantitas
et quo tempore opus inceptum quoque consummatuni
fuerat evidenter declarator.” i. cli. iii. p. 630.

“ Porro in principio bujus voluminis ajdilicii hujus
auctorem diximus Homar filium Catab qui tertius a

seductore Maometis errores et regni successor extitit.”
viii. ch. iii. p. 748. Gesta Dei p. Francos.

2 “ Inferius usque ad medium spatium nobilissime
marmore ornatum, et a medio usque ad superiorem cui
tectum incumbit, limbum musivo opere decentissime
decoratum. Ipse vero limbus circulariter per totum
templi ambitum circumductus banc continet scriptu-
ram.” In Tobler’s edition, p. 38.

Chap. III.

THE DOME OF THE EOCK.

221

In the interior, where apparently the great Arabic inscription now is, we
have, “ Dorans mea domus orationis vocabitur, dicit Dominus,” &c., as recorded
by Theodoricus, who mentions a third inscription in giving the date of these
mosaics as seventy-four years from the capture of Antioch and seventy-three
from that of Jerusalem, consequently 1172. Practically the same account of
the Latin inscriptions is given by John of Wtirzhurg,1 with some variations,
it is true, hut just sufficient to show that both were copying on the spot,
and not repeating what the other had said.

As might be expected, all these Latin inscriptions have disappeared, not
only from the outside, but from the inside of the building, though, from their
extent, they must have occupied a considerable portion of the surface now
appropriated to mosaic decoration. So too has the inscription seen by William
of Tyre, for in those that exist there is no mention of Omar-ibn-Katab, nor
any account of the expenses and purposes of the building. In its stead we
have a long inscription, which was partially translated by De Yogiie,2 and
more fully by Mr. Palmer,3 whose translation, as the most complete, is printed
in extenso in the Appendix. As understood by these gentlemen, it records the
erection of the building by Abd-el-Malek, the builder of the Aksa. As it
now stands, however, this honour is ascribed to Abd-Allah-al-Mamun, the
successor of Harun-al-Rashid, and who lived 198-218 h. This, however, is
stated to be a forgery, though, as Mr. Palmer remarks, “ it is inconceivable
that so liberal and intellectual a prince should have sanctioned so arrogant
and so transparent a fiction. ’’ 4 I quite agree with him in this, but my solution
of the mystery is different. I believe that when the Saracens under El-Hakim,
the mad khalif of Egypt, first wrested the building from the Christians, in the
beginning of the eleventh century, they put up the inscription which William of
Tyre saw, in which they ascribed the erection of the building to Omar. When,
however, they recovered it from the Christians after the Crusades, and it had
been discovered that Omar had built nothing of the sort at Jerusalem, it was
thought expedient to ascribe it to the builder of the Aksa. Again, however,
when it was pointed out that there was no authority — which there is not — for
this, Al-Mamun’s name was selected, and inserted not only in the great
inscription, but inscribed over the doorways and in several other places about
the mosque, where it is now found. But neither in their books nor in their
traditions is there any hint of his having erected this or any other great
building at Jerusalem. In order to establish the Mahomedan claim to the
building, it was necessary that it should be ascribed to some one who lived
before the Crusades, and, after hesitating between Omar and Abd-el-Malek,

1 Pez. Thesaur. Anecd. Nov. vol. i. pi. iii. pp. 494 et
seqq. Tobler’s edit. pp. 124 et seqq.

2 Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 84.

3 Quarterly Eeports, P. E. F. for 1870-71, pp. 164
et seqq.

4 Quarterly Eeports, P. E. F. for 1870-71, p. 169.

222

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

neither of whom could make good his claim to it, they seem to have chosen
Al-Mamun, though for reasons it is now difficult to ascertain.

Be this as it may, it seems quite impossible that this inscription could have
escaped the notice of two such careful observers as John of Wurzburg and
Theodoricus, if it had existed in their time. They knew perfectly what
Saracenic letters were, and the former remarks on an inscription written in
them, as we may infer from the context, the only one in the Haram area.1 I
am, however, quite prepared to admit that the Arabic inscription containing
a date, 418 h.— but a date only,2 for the name is carefully erased — may have
remained during the age of the Crusades. To me, indeed, it appears certain
it was left, and its presence now is most opportune as explaining what
without it would have remained a mystery. Practically what it seems to
tell is this. When in a.d. 1009 El-Hakim destroyed the Basilica of Constantine,
but appropriated the tomb of Christ, and dedicated it to his own religion, he
found its interior ornamented with mosaics, some of which still remain.
These must, however, have been interspersed with Christian emblems and
figures of saints, which were abominations to Moslem eyes. These he
obliterated, and they were replaced by his successor, Dhaher, in the year 418 of
the Hegira (a.d. 1027), which is the date of the inscription. When the Christians
recovered the building in 1099, they knew that the place had been in the
hands of the Saracens for ninety years, and may have known that Dhaher
was the author of these mosaics. It was sufficient for them to obliterate his
name, which could only have been done by the Christians ; but they saw no
reason for ignoring the date, and they consequently have left that as we now
find it, and it is fortunate for our purposes that they have done so, for it enables
us to understand the history of these mosaics in a manner we could not have
done without its assistance.

A good deal might, no doubt, be said about the employment of square
Kufic in nearly as archaic a form as that of this inscription in the mosque at
Cordova, a.d. 79 6, 3 or in that of Ebn-Touloun at Cairo (a.d. 876); 4 still more
about that found in the mosques at Delhi or Ajmir and Samarcand, between the
thirteenth and fifteenth centuries ; but that does not appear to affect the question
here.5 The alphabet employed in this inscription, I am informed by my friend,
Mr. Ed. Thomas, who is far more competent of judging such a question than I am,
is identical with that found on the coins of Abd-el-Malek. He has also pointed

1 “ Ab Aquilone habens unum ostium, versus claus-
trum dominorum, in cujus superliminari plures litterm
Sarracenicse sunt appositse.” Tobler’s edit. p. 125.

2 De Vogue, Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 87, pi. xxiii.

3 Girault de Prangey, Architecture des Arabes, pi. v.
* Girault de Prangey, Monuments arabes, pi. 13.

Coste, Arch. Arab. pi. v.

e A curious illustration of the mode in which these
characters were used is found in Girault de Prangey’s

Architecture des Arabes, pi. 13. In it there is repre-
sented an inscription on the robe of King Roger I. with
a date, 528 h. (a.d. 1134). This is in a very old
form of square Kufic. On the same plate are several
inscriptions from the palace of La Cuba, of the same or
an earlier date, which are in the Neschi characters current
at that time. According to the usual theory, the dates
ought to be reversed, and a couple of centuries at least
intervene between them.

Chap. III.

THE DOME OF THE ROCK.

223

out to me other difficulties that militate against the acceptance of the name of
Abd-el-Malek in lieu of that of Al-Mamun. All these, however, are details that
others must decide. My argument is not based on them, but on the broad fact,
that this inscription did not exist there during the time of the First Crusade, and
that it consequently must be a forgery of Saladin or of some one of his age.

The fact of the matter seems to be that those who forged this inscription
were probably wide enough awake to know that, if they wished it to be believed
that it was of the time of Abd-el-Malek or of Al-Mamun, they must write
it in the characters current at the time of the khalif in whose reign they wished
it to be believed it had been written. They were trying to establish a claim
to a building to which they knew they had no right, and it would be paying the
Orientals a very bad compliment to suppose they were not clever enough to
know that, if they wished their statements to be believed, they must be engrossed
in the characters of the time in which they were dated. Some may probably
be inclined to suggest that the square Kufic is much more easily written in
mosaic than the cursive writing of the Arabs, but this in itself would not be
sufficient to account for its adojition here.

The truest test, however, of the age of this inscription, is its contents. If
we assume that it was written either by Abd-el-Malek, or by Al-Mamun, or
by any one else, in a building which they believed to have been erected on the
site of Solomon’s temple, it is not only inapplicable but unintelligible. If
they believed the great Sakhra to be either the site of the Holy of Holies or
of the Altar of the Jewish Temple, it seems quite impossible that no reference
should be made to the fact, and that the names of David or of Solomon do not
occur in any part of it, and that no allusion to their greatness or their works
should occur in it, not even a prayer for the rest of their souls. If, on the other
hand, we assume that it was written by Saladin, or any one in the twelfth
century, on a building which they knew had been appropriated by his
co-religionists, but which, as Theodoricus says, writing in 1176, was erected
by Constantine and his mother, Helena, in honour of Jesus Christ,1 then every
word becomes intelligible, and is just such as we would expect to find there.
It begins, of course, with the usual paragraphs in honour and praise of the
founder of their religion, and of the unity of Grod. Then follows a very
emphatic denial of the Trinity, “ He neither begetteth nor is begotten,” which,
however, is so common an expression as not to be important here. Then follows
what is certainly most unusual, “ Yerily, Jesus, the Son of Mary, is the Apostle
of God, and his word which he cast over Mary, and a spirit from him. 0
God, pray for thy Apostle Jesus, the Son of Mary. Peace be on me the day

1 “Hoc Templum quod nunc videtur ad honorem
Domini nostri Jesu Christi ejusque pise genitricis ab
Helena regina et ejus filio imperatore Constantino con-
structum est” Ed. Tobler, p. 46. The whole passage

is printed in extenso in the appendix to my little
work entitled The Holy Sepulchre and the Temple at
Jerusalem, Murray, 1865.

224

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Paet III.

that I am born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised to life again ” ;
and so on to the end. The whole of the latter half of the inscription is, in
fact, in honour of Jesus and his mother, and the idea of any Mahomedan
inscribing that on a building supposed to he a rebuilding of the Temple of
Solomon, and having no reference to Christ, seems too absurd to be entertained
for one moment. On the other hand, if any one will read the translation
of the great inscription found in Appendix II., with the knowledge that the
building in which it is found was erected by the Christians over what they
believed to be the sepulchre in which Christ was laid, but which had afterwards
been appropriated by the Mahomedans, the whole becomes clear and intelligible.

Without more illustrations than are compatible with the nature of this
work, it may be difficult to render this history of the mosaics so clear to others
as it appears to myself; and those who have not access to De Vogue’s books
may have difficulty in following the line of argument just enunciated. Briefly,
their history seems to be this : —

When the building was first erected by Constantine, he adorned it, internally
at least, with mosaics, portions of which still remain, and which are those
which De Vogue correctly describes as so nearly resembling those of the fourth
century at Rome.

When the Saracens took possession of the building in or after 1009 a.d.,
they destroyed those parts of these mosaics representing emblems offensive
. to Moslem ideas, and in 1027 replaced them by those others which we now
see. It was probably also at this time that they inserted those inscriptions
which assert that Omar had erected the building, with details of the expenses
and motives, &c.

When the Christians regained possession of the building, in 1099, they
obliterated the Saracenic inscriptions, and replaced them by the Latin ones,
copied and published by John of Wurzburg and Theodoricus, at the same time
probably remodelling the patterns of the mosaics to some extent ; but of this
we have no direct evidence.

Lastly, when the Saracens recovered possession of the Dome of the Rock,
Saladin, or some one about his time, obliterated the Christian inscriptions,
remodelled entirely the mosaics of the side aisles at least, and inserted those
Kufic inscriptions which ascribe the erection of the building to Abd-el-Malek
or Al-Mamun, and which we see there at the present day.

There is consequently in reality no conflict between the artistic and the
epigraphic evidence of the mosaics, and the whole of the story which they tell
is in every particular confirmed by the historians of the day, and make it as
clear as anything of the sort can be, that the Dome of the Rock was not built
by the Saracens at all, but by Christians, who believed it to cover the
sepulchre of Christ.

Chap. IV.

THE DOME OF THE ROCK.

225

CHAPTER IV.

THE DOME OF THE ROCK.

History.

As before mentioned, I am not aware of the existence of any quotation from
any Mahomedan author, who wrote before the Crusades, which asserts that
either Abd-el-Malek or any one else erected any circular or octagonal building
at Jerusalem, though there are ample details regarding the square one that khalif
did erect. Nor do I know of any passage which would convey the idea that the
Moslems understood the Sakhra to be a rock. I have already pointed out that,
till the Crusades at all events, they adhered to the little or true Sakhra without
swerving, and that it was only after that time, when they found themselves
in possession of two Sakhras, that they were forced to make an election ; just
as the Christians, when they found themselves in possession of two sepulchres,
were under the necessity of adopting one, and in both instances, unfortunately
for the topography of Jerusalem, they chose the false instead of the true one.
Even to the present day the Mahomedans have only the haziest ideas possible as
to what the great Sakhra really is intended to represent. I do not gather from
any author that they really believe it to be the Altar, or the foundation of the
Altar, of the Jewish Temple. They know, as we do, that there is nothing in
the Bible, or the Talmud, or in any ancient author, to countenance the idea, that
the Altar was a rock or founded on a rock ; what we do know is that it was
in Solomon’s time of brass, in Herod’s of loose stones, but there is no mention
of the rock anywhere. It seems only something that somebody has asserted and
every one repeats, without any one enquiring whence the tradition arose.

The principal Mahomedan tradition regarding it is, that it was from this
rock that Mahomet ascended to heaven, on his celebrated night journey to that
place. Another tradition — the true one, I believe 1 — makes it the burying-place
of Solomon ; but Enoch has also a place there, and so have Abraham and Elias,
and the hand-print of Gabriel is also shown. David and Solomon have
mihrabs in the cave below, and both are represented as praying with their faces
towards Mecca, as, according to the Mahomedan ritual, they ought to do. If
asked the question pointblank at the present day, a Moslem would, no doubt,
answer according to the tradition he has learned from the Christians, that it was

2 G

1 Ante, page 57.

226

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

the site of the Altar of David ; but this is not according to anything handed
down to him by his forefathers, nor to anything to which he attaches any
real importance ; it is, indeed, at variance with all we gather from the best
Moslem mediaeval writers.

On the other hand, nothing can be more curiously characteristic of the
uncritical spirit of the age than the conduct of the Christians on their entry into
Jerusalem in 1099. Their joy at the recovery of the Dome of the Rock was
at least equal to that at their rescuing the sepulchre of Christ out of the hands
of the infidels. They immediately proceeded to erect a golden cross on the
summit of the dome. They encased the rock in marble, and erected on it a
sumptuous shrine. A golden lamp, suspended from the dome, burnt over it
day and night. Inside and outside, as we have just seen, it was covered with
mosaics, interspersed with Latin inscriptions. Regular canons were appointed
to perform service in it daily, and, in all and every respect, the Templum Domini
was considered equal in sanctity and importance to the Sepulchrum Domini in
the centre of the town.1

What, then, did the Christians suppose this building to have been ? Certainly
not, in the first instance at least, the Temple of the Jews. In no inscription
and in no text is it called Templum Salomonis or Judseorum. That, they knew
perfectly well, was represented by the Aksa, and that — which they afterwards
learned to call “ Palatium Salomonis ” — they desecrated without a moment’s
hesitation, and assigned it as a habitation to the knights who, from their

residence there, took the name of Templars. They knew the Aksa had been

built by the Moslems, and they knew equally well that the Dome of the Rock
had not been built by them ; hence their different treatment of the two buildings.
Beyond this, they seem to have been extremely puzzled to account for the origin
of the two. By degrees, as we learn from the inscriptions, they assigned places in
the Dome of the Rock, where the Virgin had been presented, when three years
old ; where Christ himself had been presented to Simeon ; where he had driven
out those who bought and sold ; where he had pardoned the woman taken

in adultery ; and localities were found for other scenes narrated in the

New Testament, as it was the custom of the day, but still without any distinct
recognition that, in so doing, they were, in fact, rehabilitating the accursed
Temple of the Jews. They could not have forgotten the prophecy so empha-
tically recalled by Eutychius, “Behold, your house shall be left desolate; of all
this glory not one stone shall be left standing on another.” Their priests, at
least, must have recollected Julian's impious attempt to rebuild the Temple, and
how it was prevented by fire from heaven. The tradition of Sophronius and
ills transactions with the khalif Omar must still have lingered in Jerusalem.

1 The references for all these assertions, with the passages on which they are based, will he found in my
Topography of Jerusalem, pp. 164 et seqq.; and need not therefore be repeated here.

Chap. IV.

THE DOME OF THE EOCK.

227

The building of the Aksa bj Abd-el-Malek on the site of the Temple was well
known and acted upon. What then was this building? The answer given to
this question by Theodoricus is probably that which would be given by any
one at that age, and is partly true, partly false. It was, he says, built by
Constantine and his pious mother, as the fifth rebuilding of the Temple since
Solomon's time.1 It was a dilemma, and it seems there was no other way out
of it. It was known to have been built by Constantine, but it could not be the
sepulchre of Christ, as this was elsewhere. It must therefore be the Temple,
because it could be nothing else, and the simple faith of that day asked no more.2

One only tradition of the locality seems to have been preserved unaltered
during the whole time of the Crusades, and it is one the least worthy of such
distinction. During the time that the Dome of the Rock was known to be the
sepulchre of Christ nothing could have appeared more natural and more
consonant with the usages of the age than that his brother James should have
been buried close to him. We consequently find, according to tradition, that
the building, now known as the Dome of the Chain, close to the eastern entrance
of the Dome of the Rock, is his reputed sepulchre. It is true, of course, that
the Mahomedans lay claim to it. It was, they assert, erected by Abd-el-Malek
as a model of the great dome alongside of it, in order that he might judge of
the effect before commencing the longer undertaking.3 Bad as the art of that
day was, it is hardly probable that he would erect an open pavilion of eleven
sides and with only six internal columns, as a model of a closed building of
eight sides externally, and of the complicated structure internally such as that
exhibited in the Dome of the Rock. The tradition is evidently only one of
those guesses at truth which are so common in Jerusalem. It is difficult,
however, to say when the building, as it now stands, was erected. All its
seventeen columns are of the Corinthian order, borrowed from some classical
building, and its superstructure of round arches has been so covered with tiles,
probably at the same time as the great mosque, that it is difficult to say when
it may have been built. What we do know is that in the twelfth century it
bore the following inscription : —

“ Die lapis et fossa enjus stmt, quse regis ossa,

Sunt Jacobi justi. Jacet hie sub tegmine busti ” ; 4

and two other longer inscriptions to the same effect, quoted by John of
Wurzburg.5 It is true he is said to have been killed by falling from the

1 Tobler’s edit. p. 46.

2 When we see what things learned men in the

present day believe and assert with reference to these

very localities, it is only too evident that the nine-
teenth century has no right to throw stones at the

credulity of the twelfth. We are, I believe, worse

now than they were then, for we have far better means
of knowing what is right, but do not employ them.

3 Mejr-ud-Din, Sauvaire’s translation, p. 50.

4 Theodoricus, Libellus de Loc. Sanct. p. 42.

6 Pez. Thesaur. Anecd. Nov. p. 496.

228

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

pinnacle of the Temple, but that is no reason why he should be buried there,
while it was a temple. In fact, the traditions says he was first buried elsewhere,
in the valley of Jehosliaphat, and only brought here and buried — “ut eum
decuit.” I would add, near the sepulchre of his brother ; but if any one can
assign any other cause for the origin of the tradition, he is welcome. It is
curious, but not of much value.

The truth of the matter appears to be that, from the very nature of the
case, it is idle to expect that any consecutive or intelligible narrative can be
obtained from the traditions connected with this building, or the statements
regarding it, made by either its present or its past possessors. Originally
built for the Christians, and possessed by them for 686 years, it was first
wrested from them in a.d. 1009, and retained by their hated rivals for ninety
years. It was recovered by the Christians, and retained by them for eighty-
eight years. They then again lost it, and their rivals have since held it for
690 years. Bandied about in this manner from one to another, the Christians
have exhausted their ingenuity to invent excuses to explain how they came
to lose what they know was their own. The Moslems have been equally
industrious in trying to invent titles which would justify their retaining
what they know does not belong to them ; and between the two they have
involved the building in such a mass of contradictory fables that it would be
an utterly hopeless task to attempt to unravel its history, were it not that
Architecture never lies, and that Art, when not purposely falsified, may be
depended upon as speaking the truth. With these two guides, however, the
path is tolerably clear, and very little more is now wanted to make the results
it leads to absolutely certain.

Even written history, though much less trustworthy, is far from contra-
dicting this view, and indeed rather confirms it, provided we bear in mind that
the two centuries during which these transfers and retransfers of the building,
backwards and forwards, between the two rival sects took place, were those
when the passions of the East and West were most violently excited the one
against the other. They wrnre also those in which the critical faculties of
mankind were most obscured by passion, and when faith justified means to
an extent that would not have been tolerated at other times. When these
sources of error are carefully eliminated, there remains a residuum of truth
which, with the artistic evidence and the local indications, renders the story
of the Dome of the Rock, for the fifteen centuries it has existed, as nearly
certain as that of any other building that has been in use as long, and has
had so eventful a history.

Chap. V.

THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE.

229

CHAPTER V.

THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE.

Nothing has recently been discovered in reference to the Golden Gateway
that throws any new light on its history. Unlike the Huldah and southern
Parbar gates of the Temple, which were subterranean structures, this was
always a free-standing edifice, with architectural ornaments on all its four
sides, and therefore nothing was to be discovered by excavations. The one
point which has been brought prominently forward is the existence of the
commencement of an arcade extending southward along the ITaram wall, and
to which access was obtained from a portal in its southern wall.1 From its
position, and that of its portal, this gallery or porch, which is about 20 feet
in width, was evidently an important structure, and it would be interesting
if its extent and form could be ascertained. That, however, could only be
obtained by excavations, which are not likely to be at present undertaken.
Near the middle of it there is a postern, the “ portula ” of Arculfus,2 the
existence of which proves that the building to which it gave access must
have been of some importance.

In itself, the Golden Gateway is one of the least altered buildings in
Jerusalem. It has not been occupied and reoccupied by contending religions,
and adapted to their various purposes ; and, except a slight alteration in the
roof, of no great importance, it remains substantially as it was originally
erected, and its age can consequently be obtained from its architecture with
more certainty than that of almost any other building in Jerusalem. No one
has yet ventured to assert that it could have been erected before the time of
Constantine, and no one who knows anything of architecture can fail to see
that it was erected long before the age of Justinian, while the presence of
sculptured crosses on its capitals proves that it was erected by Christians and
for Christian purposes.3 If, in fact, it is not the festal portal which Eusebius
describes Constantine as erecting in front of his Basilica — the crowning member
of the group — it seems impossible to suggest what it may have been.

It is quite true, nevertheless, that this view of its origin has not been taken

1 De Vogiie, Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. vii. Major
Wilson’s Notes, p. 36.

2 Act. Sanct. ord. Ben. vol. iii. p. ii. p. 504. De

Saulcy, Voyage autour de la Mer Morte, p. xxiv.
Wilson’s Notes, p. 25, pi. x. fig. 6.

3 De Vogiid, Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 66.

230

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

however, they also know that the apathy of the general public is such, and
their ignorance as a rule so great, that they will not demand a categorical
answer to this question, for the simple reason that few are aware of the value
of architectural evidence in determining such questions. All are, consequently,
agreed, and wisely, that silence is the best policy; and they have religiously
observed it. It is not, it must be confessed, a very straightforward or dignified
way of meeting a difficulty, but it is one that society sanctions ; and as long as
the world in general are content that it should be so, it must also be content
to put up with an imposture. It seems, however, little creditable to the boasted
spirit of enquiry, said to be characteristic of the nineteenth century, that this
should be so.

by any English author I am acquainted with ; for the simple reason that, though
it is now nearly thirty years since the challenge was put forward, no one
lias yet ventured to accept it. Like the late Professor Willis, they have all
ridden off on various extraneous issues, but no one has ventured to say who built
the Golden Gateway, nor to suggest how or why it was placed there. They
know, perfectly well, that no reasonable answer can be given to these questions
that would stop short of an admission that it was built by Constantine ; and
they know equally well that, if this were admitted, the whole framework
of impostures that has grown up around the present Church of the Holy
Sepulchre would crumble to pieces like the fabric of a vision. Unfortunately,

67. — West Face of Golden Gateway. (From a drawing by Arundale.)

Chap. V.

THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE.

231

Fortunately for the purposes of the present investigation, there are few
buildings of antiquity the age of which can be ascertained with greater
certainty, from their own intrinsic evidence, than the Gfolden Grateway. The
only difficulty is that it was erected in an age of transition, when the old pagan
style was dying out, and the new Christian art can hardly be said to have been
born ; hence it contains features belonging to both styles, and its style of art
is not so settled as to enable us to trace the sequence with the same precision

68. — Interior or Golden Gateway. (From a drawing by David Roberts, R.A.)

we might have done had it been erected a century later or earlier. Thus it
might, for instance, be fairly argued that it was anterior to the time of Diocletian,
because — especially on its western face — all the three members of the classical
entablature are bent together into the form of an arch, whereas at Spalatro
{ante, woodcut No. 57) the architrave is generally separated from the other
two members, and employed as an archivolt by itself. When we reflect that,
for a thousand years before Constantine’s time, the classical entablature had
invariably consisted of three chief parts — architrave, frieze, and cornice — and

232 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Part III.

this combination had become so sacred that their separation had never been
attempted, it is probable that bending all three together, as at Jerusalem,
would have preceded bending one, and leaving the other two straight, as in
Dalmatia. As seen, however, from the woodcut No. 57, both practices were
adopted in Diocletian’s palace. The architects were, in fact, feeling their way
towards the best mode of effecting a change that had become necessary, but
had not quite made up their minds how it should be done.

Besides this transitional example at Spalatro, there is an arch and some
other buildings at Mylasa in Caria1 2 which resemble the Golden Gateway in

69. — Capital and Entablature or the Interior of Golden Gateway. (From a drawing by Arundale.)

style and arrangement so much more than any known building subsequent to
the time of Constantine that it might plausibly be argued that it belonged
to Pagan rather than to Christian times. In so far as style is concerned, this
might be true ; but the Christian crosses on the capitals of the Golden Gateway,
like the bipennis of Jupiter on the keystone of the Carian arch, are quite

1 Ionian Antiquities, published by the Society of Dilettanti, vol. ii. pi. xxii. et seqq.

2 De Vogiid, Le Temple de Jerusalem, p. 66.

Chap. V.

THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE.

233

sufficient to settle that point. The gateway was erected by Christians, and
the only question is at what epoch.

On the other hand, I only know of one subsequent example, that of
St. John Studios (woodcut No. 64), where the order retains, as in classical
times, all the three essential parts of the entablature ; but this, as hinted above,
may be owing to its being in a metropolis, where the traditions of the art
would naturally have been preserved longer than in the provinces. None of
the examples drawn by De Vogue in Syria, of the fifth or sixth century, have
the complete entablature ; in all, the simple convex Byzantine cornice prevails,
without either its accompanying architrave or frieze.

In the interior of the gateway these distinctions are even more clearly
marked than on the exterior. A complete entablature runs along both the
northern and southern sides, resting on Corinthian pilasters of a thoroughly
classical type. Here, however, it is attached to the wall merely as an ornament,
without any constructive function to perform ; and hence there was no necessity
for lightening it, as in the Dome of the Rock, by cutting away the architrave
and leaving only a block over each pilaster. The discharging arch, also, over
the order is built into the wall, and is part of the construction ; but as in the
Dome of the Rock, so here the entablature is entirely omitted over the free-
standing pillars in the centre of the building. In both instances the arches spring
direct from the capitals without any intervening members, and may thus be
said to be the first really constructive examples of the newly born Byzantine
style, while the pilasters and entablature on the wall are the last reminiscences
of the dying style of classical art.

One of the most curious differences in the style of the two buildings is
that in the Dome of the Rock the capitals of the arch-bearing pillars are still
fairly classical Corinthian. The shafts, of verde antique and other precious
marbles, are certainly borrowed from other buildings ; and the capitals may be
reminiscences of those they originally bore. In the Golden Gateway, no attempt
is made in these free-standing pillars to reproduce the forms of Pagan art. They
are boldly and originally Byzantine, according neither with the corresponding
pilasters in the wall nor with anything else of that age. In them, as in the
constructive parts generally, the transition is complete ; in the other or decorative
parts of the gateway, it is only dawning. In fact, from whatever point of view
it is regarded, it seems impossible to remove the erection of the Golden Gateway
far from the age of Constantine, even supposing the fact of its erection by
him being open to doubt. Its Christian character precludes the possibility of
its being earlier. Its architectural features prove that it cannot be much —
if at all — more modern ; and its historical characteristics show as clearly as
anything can, that it must have been erected by Constantine, and by him only.
From his time to that of Justinian, Jerusalem was a prosperous Christian see.
The succession of bishops was unbroken ; and numerous writers — Chrysostom,

234

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Pakt III.

Jerome, Socrates, Sozomen, and many others — have left records of every note-
worthy event that occurred during the interval that elapsed between their two
reigns. Not one hint is given by any of them of the erection of any building
at Jerusalem between the time of those enumerated by Eusebius and those
described by Procopius. Had any, especially any as important as the Golden
Gateway, been erected in the interval, it seems impossible that no notice of it
should be found anywhere. This evidence is, of course, only negative ; but when
combined with the direct testimony of Eusebius, that it formed one of a group
of buildings erected by Constantine, it seems more than sufficient to settle the
point beyond all possibility of dispute.1

One new and important fact was brought to light by the Ordnance
Survey, which was a much more serious objection to my views, as originally
put forward, than the famous one regarding the “ broad agora,/’ and one I should
have found it very difficult to explain but for a fortunate discovery of Captain
Warren, which at once made all clear. It was that the difference of level
between the floor of the Golden Gateway and that of the platform on which
the Dome of the Rock stands is not less than 50 feet. When I first drew my
plans of the Christian buildings in the Haram area, I was not aware of this
great difference of level, and drew the Basilica with its atrium as in the axis
of the gateway, as is usual in Western churches ; but this allowed no means
of getting over the fifty feet difference of height, nor do I know now where I
could place the stairs requisite for ascending from one level to the other in a
dignified manner (see Plan No. V.). One, consequently, of the most important
results of Captain Warren’s great discovery was that it showed the floor of the
Basilica to be 30 feet below that of the upper platform, and hence only
20 feet above the floor of the Golden Gateway, a difference easy to get over.
The second important result was that it made it evident that the southern
wall of the Basilica was in the position where I had placed the northern, and
further that the agora was internal, and not external, as had been generally
assumed, and so clearing up all the other outstanding difficulties affecting this
branch of the subject still remaining unexplained.2

1 Some further evidence on this subject will be found
in Appendix V., treating of the Count de Vogue’s
theory of the Haram ash Sharif.

2 The moment I became aware of the nature of this
discovery, from the lithograph prepared by the P. E. F.
from sketches he sent home, I wrote to Captain Warren,
explaining to him that what he had found was really
the Basilica of Constantine, and begging him to con-
tinue its exploration before all other things, and offered
to pay the expense, which I then believed would
probably not exceed £10 to £20. Captain Warren,
however, did nothing more in this direction, nor

did M. Ganneau, though I have reason for believing
lie could easily have done it, had be been so inclined,
during the year the mosque was desecrated, being
in the hands of the workmen for the repairs. On his
return home, Captain Warren mentions this discovery
in the most perfunctory manner, as of little consequence
(Recovery of Jerusalem, pp. 218-221), as not agreeing
with Dr. Lightfoot’s plan, but at the same time care-
fully suppressing any allusion to my views, or to the
correspondence I had had with him on the subject.
Subsequently, in his Underground Jerusalem (pp. 400
et seqq.), he merely alludes to it as a cause of bitter

Chap. V.

THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE.

235

What Captain Warren did discover will be understood from the annexed
section and plan, both drawn to a scale of 20 feet to 1 inch. The principal part

70. — Section of Vaults discovered by Captain Warren, North of Platform of Dome of Rock. (Facsimile.)

71. — Plan of Vaults discovered by Captain Warren.1 (Facsimile.)

was an aisle about 20 feet in width, blocked up with rubbish, which had
fallen in from above, at either end, but which was tolerably clear for about

complaint against me, because, wben I found he had
come away without any further attempt at explora-
tion, I — fearing that expense might he the cause of
nothing further being done — wrote to the “ Fund,”
through Major Wilson, offering them, or any one, one
hundred guineas if they would only sink a hole
where I had marked it on Plan, Plate V., and

ascertain whether the apse was there or not. I
am afraid, however, the opportunity is now lost. In
the present state of feeling between Christian and
Mahomedan, it is scarcely likely any digging there
will be allowed, and we must, therefore, be content
with the very meagre particulars we now possess.

1 See also Plate V.

236

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

70 feet in length, east and west. On the north side was a wall with no apparent
opening in it ; on the south four piers were discovered, projecting from
16 to 17 feet from the face of the scarped rock, 3 feet 6 inches in width,
and somewat irregularly spaced, ranging from 12 to 13 feet. These piers
are partly cut from the living rock, partly eked out by masonry, and are
now joined by pointed vaults, evidently of Saracenic origin. Beyond this,
westward, at a distance of about 150 feet, “the ground sounds hollow, possibly
vaults underneath.” 1

The question is, What is this excavation ? It certainly is not a cistern,
as there are no arrangements for keeping in the water on three sides, and
no trace of its ever having been so employed. Besides, the piers, cut out of
the solid rock, with the masonry additions, are not cistern arrangements, and
must have been executed for some other purpose. What that purpose may
have been, no one has yet ventured to suggest. To me it appears hardly to
admit "of any question that they must be parts of one of the double aisles
of Constantine’s Basilica, which Eusebius describes as “ partly above ground and
partly beneath it.”2 The same arrangement occurs in the contemporary churches
of San Lorenzo outside the Walls, and Sant’ Agnese at Rome. Both of these
churches had a principal, if not the principal, entrance on the flank on the
gallery level, and we know that the same thing occurred here, first from the
text of Eusebius, and now from this discovery of Captain Warren’s. But
this is not all ; for in consequence of it we can now understand some passages
in Eusebius hitherto quite unintelligible, which, but for our improved know-
ledge of the localities, might have remained so to the end of time. Now,
however, anyone who chooses can follow the narrative of Eusebius without
hesitation, and identify every act of the Emperor in his search for the Holy
places, and his endeavours to render them, by architectural decorations, worthy
of the important position they occupied in Christian topography.

As I have already published a careful analysis of the narrative of Eusebius,
from his description of the removal of the temple of Yenus3 till the com-
pletion of the whole group of buildings,4 it will not be necessary to go over
the same ground again, more particularly as all that really bears on Captain
Warren’s discovery is contained in chapters xxxiv., xxxv. and xxxvi. of the
3rd book of the ‘ Life of Constantine.’

In chapter xxxiv. Eusebius describes the manner in which the Emperor
ornamented, not only the rock itself, but also the building in which he enclosed
it with beautiful columns and every sort of magnificence, meaning, as he says,

1 Last edition of Ordnance Survey map, 1876.

2 Avaytlcov re <al KornyeiW. Vita Const, iii. 27.

I wonder if any one ever seriously believed that
any Roman emperor had ever erected a temple to

Venus on a rock in the middle of the old Jewish

town ; or was it only that this was one of those ugly-
looking facts that it is so convenient to forget and pass
over.

4 Notes on the Site of the Holy Sepulchre, Murray,
1861, pp. 44 et seqq.

Chap. V.

THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE.

237

to make it the chief and principal object of the whole group (tov rravros Ke(f)a\rj).
The 35th chapter describes, in a manner not to be mistaken, the platform on
which the Dome of the Rock now stands as a vast open space, paved with
splendid stones, and having porticos on three sides.1 Then follows a passage
which I would translate as follows : — “ The Basilica was attached ” (on the
north) “ to that portion of this platform 2 which is situated to the eastward of
the side of the building containing the sacred cave ” 3 a rather free translation,
it must be confessed, but one that, T believe, will be borne out in every
particular by the context. The nominative in the second sentence is certainly
the “vast platform,” though it is not expressed; and Captain Warren’s discovery
explains how a basilica can be attached to a platform by being on a lower
level, though without this knowledge the statement was inexplicable. The
use of the word “ cave ” only for “ building containing cave ” added also to
the mystery. But a cave can have no sides, and, besides, we had just been told
that the holy cave was enclosed in a building which was intended to be
the most magnificent of the whole group, and it could only be of the eastern
side of this building, not of the side of the cave inside it, that the historian
was thinking of, when describing the objects external to it.

“ On the north ” is, of course, an insertion of my own, but it is just such
an expletive as Eusebius might have added, and so saved an infinity of
conjectures. There is certainly nothing to show that it might not be
inserted, and the new discoveries prove that its insertion was necessary to
complete the sense.

There is nothing now existing to show on which of the three sides of
the platform the porticos existed, but there is what is now represented as
a long cistern on the Ordnance Survey (135 by 23 feet), extending from the
northern door of the Dome of the Rock to where, I believe, the transept of
the Basilica to have been. I cannot help fancying that this may originally
have been intended as an inclined plane joining the two buildings, and, if so>
probably covered with a portico, thus cutting the platform into a western and
an eastern half, and so explaining further the expression of Eusebius. If so,
a portico would certainly extend along the southern face of the Basilica and
another probably opposite, so as to hide the Temple area from the sacred
precincts of the Christians.4 This is, and, of course, must, for the present at least,

1 Aufiaive §’ e^rjs, eVt TrappeyiQr] x^Povi els Kadapov

pWpiov avcnTeTTTap.il/ov , k.t.X.

2 In ordinary parlance, “ platform ” is not the usual
translation for x“P0lG But, where it is found applied

to an open space that takes that form, it seems jus-
tifiable. In the present instance, avvryrrTo seems to
imply that it was “ stuck on ” to something that was
more clearly defined than a mere open space.

“ T<5 yap KaravTLKpv irXevpcp tov avrpov, b 8r) npbs

avl<T\ovTa rfXiov ecopa, o [3 aaiXetos (TvvrjTTTo vecos, epyov
i^aieriov, k.t.X.

4 In Arculfus’ plan of the four churches, quoted
further on, a long gallery seems to extend east and west
from the northern gateway of Justinian’s buildings to
somewhere about the Bab el Silsile, or Gate of the
Chain. This may probably be the portico described by
Eusebius.

238 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Part III.

remain, conjecture; but I do not think any candid person can read the nar-
rative of Eusebius, with the plan of Captain Warren’s discovery before him,
without perceiving what a flood of light it sheds on the subject, and how
nearly at last it settles all the disputed points regarding , the position of the
Basilica and Anastasis with their surroundings.

The results of this discovery are even more satisfactory as regards the
Golden Gateway than respecting the Basilica. When I first wrote on the
subject, I had no means of knowing whether the atrium of the Basilica
could or could not be joined to it. It is now certain that it could not. The
building stands entirely free, and nothing was attached to it but the corridors
along the Haram walls, which certainly existed on the south and probably on
the north side of the building. The mode, consequently, in which the two
buildings were joined was an inexplicable mystery till it was discovered that
I had placed the northern wall of the Basilica where the southern wall ought
to have been, when the whole thing became clear at once. After describing the
interior of the Basilica, and its three eastern doors, Eusebius adds, “ There
was then the atrium, with its porticos on either side, and after that ” (eastward)
“ the gates of the atrium.” “ After these, the vestibule of the whole group of
buildings ” (the Golden Gateway), “ situated in the middle of a broad agora, and
ornamented in the most ambitious manner, and so placed that those who were
outside, when they looked inward, were struck with the magnificence of what
they saw.” 1 Any one turning to the plan (Plate Y.) will see at once how
perfectly every syllable of this is explained by the buildings as now arranged.
The agora was inside, not outside. The Golden Gateway was independent of
the Basilica, and those who looked inward, through it, must certainly have
been struck with the sjilendour of the prospect. In front of them was the
magnificent flight of steps leading to the upper platform. On the right was
the Basilica, on the left the Church of Golgotha, and in front the Dome
of the Rock, the chief building of the whole group. At first sight, some
of Eusebius’ expressions appear exaggerated, but when these buildings are
restored, as they can easily be from the two that remain, they appear to be
fully justified.

Beside the Anastasis and Martyrion, or, in other words, the Dome of the
Rock and the Basilica of Constantine, there was a third church, belonging to
the same group, called that of Golgotha. It is, however, by no means clear
by whom it was built. It is not mentioned by Eusebius among the buildings
of the Emperor, nor is there any hint of such a building being erected by
any one between the times of Constantine and Justinian ; still there can be
no doubt of its existence. Arculfus calls it a large church towards the

1 Vita Const, iii. 39.

Chap. Y. THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE. 239

east, erected in that place which in Hebrew is called Golgotha.1 The monk
Bernhard apparently confounds it with the Basilica of Constantine,2 to which
it was attached ; but both of them mention it as one of the four separate
and distinct churches which in their age made up the Christian group. The
probability seems to be that it may have been built by Helena, the mother
of the emperor, when she first discovered the crosses, which seems to have
been the first act in that strange drama. Be this as it may, both Arculfus
and Bernhard describe it as situated on one side of the platform,3 the
7 Ta/jifieyedr] x™Pov of Eusebius. Antoninus, indeed, gives the distance, 400 feet
(lxxx gressus ), which is exactly that which we obtain from the Ordnance
Survey.4

It is impossible now to say what may have been the height of the
rock of Golgotha at the time of the Crucifixion ; it still stands more than

20 feet above the level of the floor of the Golden Gateway, and has every

appearance of having been levelled, probably at the time when it, with its
coherent basilica, was destroyed, either at the end of the tenth or at the

beginning of the eleventh century. If it stood 10 or 15 feet higher, it

is easy to understand how such a rock overhanging the valley of the
Kidron should have been chosen as a place of execution for the city of
Jerusalem.

Whatever it may have suffered with respect to height, the rock still
retains one of those features which are important in determining the locality.
When describing the church in the sixth century, Antoninus mentions that at
the altar there is an opening, at which, “ if you place your ear, you hear the
flowing of water, and if you throw into it an apple, or anything that will
swim, and go afterwards to Siloam, you will find it there.’' 5 The rock is still
honeycombed with cisterns, but whether they communicate with each other,

1 “Alia vero pergrandis ecclesia orientem versus in
illo fabricata est loco, qui Hebraice Golgotha vocatur.”
Acta Sanct. ssec. iii. pars ii. p. 524.

2 “ Intra banc civitatem, exceptis aliis ecclesiis, quatuor

eminent ecclesiee mutuis sibimet parietibus cohan-entes,

una videlicet ad orientem qua? babet nomen Calvarire,

et locum in quo reperta fuit crux Domini et vocatum
basilica Constantini. Aba ad meridiem” (Justinian’s
church), “ tertia ad occidentem, in cujus medio est sepul-
chrum Domini.” Acta Sanct. ord. Benedict, iii. pars ii.
p. 524. Professor Willis, in his work on the Holy
Sepulchre, p. 136, perceives the contradiction in this
passage, where it is said there were four churches,
while only three are described, and boldly translates
“ tertia ” as “ fourth.” I could not dare to do this,
but it is one way at least out of the difficulty, and
one, as it happens, in accordance with the facts of the

3 “ Inter prcedictas igitur mi ecclesias est paradisus
sine tecto, cujus parietes auro radiant, pavimentum
vero lapide sternitur pretiosissimo ” (almost the words
of Eusebius) “ habens in medio sui confinium nn
catenarum quse veniunt a prcedictis ini ecclesiis in
quo dicitur medius esse mundus.” Bernhard, Tobler’s
ed. p. 93.

“Inter Anastasim, hoc est illam ssepe memoratam
rotundam ecclesiam, et Basilicam Constantini quaedam
patet plateola usque ad ecclesiam Golgothanam, in qua
videlicet plateola die et nocte lampades ardent.” Adam.
loc. cit.

4 Antoninus, Tobler, p. 21.

6 “ Ad altarium est crepatura, ubi ponis aurem et
audies flumina aquarum, et si jactas malum, pomum
aut aliud, quod natare potest, et vadis ad Siloam fon-
tem et ibi suscipies.” Ant. Tobler, p. 21.

case.

240

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Pakt III.

or where they overflow, has not yet been ascertained ; the strong probability
is, however, that the overflow of all the cisterns on this hill is towards Siloam,
and, at all events, it is quite certain that there are no such cisterns under
the Golgotha in the city, and no flow towards Siloam from that side of the
town. The experiment might easily be tried now, and an answer obtained
if the ancient channels are not choked up, which, however, they may
possibly be.

We are now in a position to understand the plan of Arculfus,1 which,
if taken for what it pretends to be, is perfectly intelligible, and ought to be
final in this controversy. Like Eusebius, he avowedly exaggerates the
importance of the Anastasis, which was the head of the whole.2 The Basilica,
which contained nothing sacred, and was merely architecturally important,
is represented by the letter m.3 Even the Church of Golgotha is represented
as less important than the place where the crosses were found, and the
plateola is represented by two k’s, as if it included not only the platform but
the agora, which, in his mind perhaps, they did; while Justinian’s Mary
Church, which was the fourth in the group, is represented only by its
propylon. All the four are there, however, and in their relative positions,
though certainly not in their relative proportions, and so arranged as to
prove, so far as I am capable of forming an opinion, the correctness of the

1 72. — Plan of the Four Churches in the Haram Area. (By Arculfus.)

A, Tegurium Rotundum. B, Sepulclmim Domini. C, Altaria Dualia. D, Altaria. E, Ecclesia. F, Golgothana Ecclesia.
G, In loco altans Abraham. H, In quo loco Crux Dominica cum binis latronum crucibus sub terra repcrta est. I, Mensa lignea.

K, Plateola in qua die et nocte lampades ardent. L, Sanctre Mari* ecclesia. M, Constantina Basilica, hoc est martyrum.

N, Exhedra cum calice Domini.

2 “ Has itaque quaternalinm figuras ecclesiarum,
juxta exemplar, quod mihi (ut supra dictum est)
Arculfus in paginola figuravit cerata, depinximus. Non
quod potest earum similitudo formare in pictura, sed

ut Domiuicum monumentum, licet tali vili figuratum,
in medietate rotund* ecclesise constitutum monstretur,

aut quee liinc proprior ecclesia vel qu* eminus posita
declaretur.” Acta Sanct. vol. iii. pars ii. p. 457.

3 Nothing in this plan is more misleading than the
fact that the Basilica is not figured on the plan at all,
and its position merely indicated by the letter m,
which, however, is quite correct, as far as it goes.

Chap. V.

THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE.

241

distribution of the Holy Places shown in Plan Y., which is based on a photo-
graphic reduction of the Ordnance Survey.1

Among the places mentioned by Arculfus in his narrative, and marked on
his plan, is one which, in any ordinary controversy, would be considered final, as
fixing the position of the Christian edifices on the eastern hill. Between the two
churches — the Basilica of Constantine and the Church of Calvary — he points out
the spot where Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac.2 It is true, ot
course, that this sacred locality, with all the others, has been transferred to the
sepulchre in the town, though one would fancy the idea of Abraham sacrificing
his son in the middle of a town of the Jebusites would be rather a strong dose
to be swallowed by even the dullest of mediaeval tradition-mongers.

The fact, however, seems to be that tradition always connected this
proposed sacrifice with the Mount Moriah and the Altar of David. Even
Josephus asserts distinctly that Abraham offered up Isaac on the mountain
on which David afterwards built — or proposed to build — the Temple.3
St. Jerome, on three separate occasions, states, on the authority, apparently,
of the Jews, that the Temple was built on Mount Moriah, on which Abraham
offered up Isaac,4 and this is endorsed by St. Augustine,5 and seems to have
been the tradition preserved throughout the Middle Ages,6 and only not to

1 The plan here given is based partly on the nar-
rative of Arculfus, as written down by Adamnanus,
partly on the plan drawn by him on the wax tablet.
It is a little difficult to reconcile some of their state-
ments, but it must be borne in mind that the text was
dictated from memory to a person who knew nothing
of the locality, and the plan was drawn, equally from
memory, not as a correct survey of the locality, but to
explain the relative position and relative importance of
the four churches, which then formed the Christian
establishment of Jerusalem.

2 “ Inter has itaque duales ecclesias ille famosus
occurrit locus in quo Abraham patriarcha altare com-
posuit, super illud imponens lignorum struem, et ut
Isaac immolaret filium suum . . . ubi nunc mensa
lignea et parva, super quam pauperum eleemosinae a
populo offeruntur.” Act. Sanct. loc. sup. cit.

3 Antiquities, i. 13, 1 & 2.

4 Com. in Jeremiam, ch. xxvi. iv. 1026 ; Com. in
Genesim, ch. xxii. 2, iii. 337 ; Com. in Mark, ch. xv.
xi. app. 125.

5 Opera omnia, tertia editio. Yenetiis, 1797, vol. xvi.
p. 691.

6 One of the most distinct of these records is that
of the deacon Theodorus or Theodosius, who, accord-
ing to his editor, Dr. Tobler, travelled in Palestine in the
sixth century. The paragraph is quoted here entire, as
translated from an unpublished MS. in the Catholic
University of Louvain, by Mr. A. B. M'Grigor, of
Glasgow: — “From the [scene of the] Passion of the
Lord, which is the place of Calvary, to the Sepulchre of

the Lord [the distance is] fifteen paces. There men
were purged from their sins. There Abraham offered
his son for a burnt offering to the Lord, which mount is
ascended by steps. There the cross of the Lord was
found where it is called Golgotha. There, are, however,
some who affirm that the whole part [of the cross]
which touched the naked body of the Lord, and was
dyed with His blood, was forthwith carried away from
human touch and sight to heaven, and that it will at
last appear at the judgment. And note that Jerusalem
is called the place of the valley of vision by Isaiah on
account of the height of the hills, on which summit is
the little hill called Moria, on which Abraham sacrified
Isaac, where the Jews s report [that] after[wards] the
Temple [was] built, and the altar, on which hill also
Abraham made an altar, and David saw the angel
sheath a sword in the threshing-floor of Oman the
Jebusite. Concerning which [hill] Isaiah says, ‘ There
shall be a mountain on the top of the mountains,’ at it
every nation [and] every tribe adores the temple.
There also Jacob saw the ladder, whence it is called
Bethel. From Golgotha to St. Syon [are] two hundred
paces, which is the mother, as they report, of all
churches,” &c. To this Mr. M'Grigor adds, “ What-
ever else may be thought of this, one thing seems clear,
that the writer believed that the same hill witnessed, in
succession, the offering of Isaac, the vision of the angel
at Araunah’s threshing - floor, the building of the
Temple, and the death and burial of our Saviour.”
See Notes and Queries for January 27, 1877.

2 i

242

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

have been distinctly asserted by Arculfus because it was so apparent that it did
not require being stated. If the Christian edifices were on the eastern bill,
it was perfectly well known that the Temple was so also, and to state it in
writing would certainly have been a work of supererogation. Any attempt
to reconcile bis descriptions with the position of the buildings in the town
appears to me one of the most hopeless of undertakings, but placed as
shown in the plan, Plate V., not only is every word of his description intelligible,
but this and all other traditions of his age find a fitting local habitation and
a name. Though as historical facts they may be worthless, it frequently
happens that these traditions are of the utmost importance as local indications,
connecting together places that, without their evidence, we might fancy far
asunder.

Before describing Justinian’s Mary Church — which, though one of the
four great churches of Jerusalem in Arculfus’ time, was not situated on any
sacred site — it may be well to cast a glance backwards, to see how far the
Jewish and Christian sites, just pointed out, accord with or illustrate the scenes
of the Passion, which the Christian buildings were erected to commemorate.

The place where the Sanhedrim sat, before whom Christ was taken to be
judged, was undoubtedly the room Gazith, at the southern end of the Court
of the Women in the Temple. Thence he was taken along the east and north
sides of the Court of the Gentiles to the Tower Antonia, which was then the
Praetorium and the residence of the Roman governor. The Gabbatha, or
pavement, where the next scenes were enacted, must have been the inner
courtyard of that fortress, and it was in the dungeons either beneath or
attached to that court that he was mocked and scourged. Whether the Masonic
Hall, so called, with the pillar in its centre, was or was not the actual spot
where these sad scenes took place, must be left for future determination. When
these chambers are more perfectly explored than they have hitherto been, we
may be able to determine some points that must for the present be left for
conjecture ; but with regard to the main facts, and to its being within the
precincts of this fortress that all these scenes took place, there seems to be
no reasonable doubt.

From the court of the fortress to the place of execution measures about
300 yards, a distance along which a strong man might be expected to bear
the cross on which he was to be executed ; but even that distance was too
great for Jesus. He sank under the load, and they compelled Simon, a
Cyrenian, who passed by, “coming out of the country,” to bear his cross.
The expression in St. Mark, “ And when they had mocked him, they took off the
purple from him, and put his own clothes on him, and led him out ” ( k^dyovo-tv
avTov) “ to crucify him.” This accords perfectly with the parallel passage in
St. John, who says, “ And he, bearing his cross, went forth ” ( e^rjXOev ) “ into a
place called the place of a skull ” ; all tending to show that he was led out

Chap. V.

THE GOLDEN GATEWAY AND THE BASILICA OF CONSTANTINE.

243

from the Prgetorium towards the country, and apparently to no great distance.
Such at least is the impression we gather from all the circumstances of the
case as narrated by the Evangelists. The soldiers who mocked him while on
the cross, and who brought him vinegar,1 do not seem to have been the guard
detached specially to see the execution properly carried out, but the idle
soldiers of the neighbouring garrison, who, with the people, had assembled
to see the execution.

The vinegar here spoken of is evidently the posca, which, when mixed
with water, was the ordinary drink of the Roman soldiers, and must have been
administered by them, rather than by the Jews, who did not and would not
have been allowed to interfere with the execution when once it had taken place.
This is even more apparent in the last moments of his agony, when Jesus
exclaimed, “ Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” which of course the soldiers did not
understand. One of them ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar, and gave
it him to drink, the obvious inference being that he ran to his barracks, which
could not be far off, and fetched what was there to be had in abundance.

We gather the same impression from the conduct of the priests and the
people throughout all these transactions. They went together to the Roman
governor to clamour together for his execution, but there is no hint that any
of the priests accompanied him to the place of execution. He was followed
there by a great crowd of people (7 roXv TrXrjOos tou Xaov) ; but the priests
apparently kept apart, and “ mocking him, with the scribes and elders,
said, He saved others; himself he cannot save.’' 2 Where, then, were these
priests ? The answer seems easy ; they were looking on, from the roof of
the northern cloister of the Temple. There at least they could easily see all
that passed, and gloat in security over the sufferings of their victim.

All the scenes of the Passion are so familiar to every educated Christian
that it is needless to recapitulate or enlarge on them here3 further than to
point out that, in order to understand their topographical bearing, it seems
indispensable that in the immediate vicinity of the place of execution there
should be, first, the Temple with its vindictive priesthood, next the Prgetorium,
with its idle and insolent soldiery, and, lastly, a public road leading from one
of the gates of the city, or of the fortress, along which crowds of people
were passing between the country and the town. It is also indispensable
that the place of execution should be outside the walls ; and this we know
was the case with the locality now indicated, as the wall that enclosed the
cemetery, which before was unprotected, was erected by Herod Agrippa

1 Luke xxiii. 36.

2 Matt, xxvii. 41, 42.

3 The whole of this argument has been admirably

stated, and with great fulness, by the Rev. George
Sandie, in his work entitled Horeb and Jerusalem,
published by Edmonston and Douglas, 1864.

244

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

thirteen years after the time of the Crucifixion, “when those parts that were
situated to the northward of the Temple stood all naked.” 1

From the absence of distinct topographical indications in the New Testa-
ment, it may he difficult to prove this with such mathematical clearness as
to defy contradiction. But this, I think, may be asserted without the smallest
fear of refutation, that there is not one word in the narratives of the four
Evangelists which is not perfectly and easily intelligible on the assumption
that the localities are those which are pointed out in the preceding pages ;
while it may be asserted with equal confidence that there is not one word
in the Bible narrative, which can be applied to the sepulchre in the town,
without beiug twisted to an extent beyond the fair limits of reasonable
interpretation. If, indeed, it were only the truth or reasonableness of the Bible
narrative that were at stake, few, I believe, would doubt the correctness of what
has just been stated ; but, unfortunately, a sacred tradition has to be defended,
that thousands and tens of thousands have implicitly relied upon during the
last eight hundred years. On the other hand, the discovery that the Dome of the
Rock was built by Constantine, and for seven centuries enjoyed the reputation
of being the sepulchre of Christ, is only a new truth of no saving help to
any man’s faith, even though it explains much in the Bible narrative that
was hitherto obscure and unintelligible. Under these circumstances, it is little
to be wondered at that, with nine men out of ten, especially among the
clergy, it is considered better that the Bible should stand on one side. It
can take care of itself, hut the tradition must be carefully nursed, or it may
die, and by its death cause a vacancy that, with the multitude at least, it
would be difficult to replace.

1 Josephus, B. J. v. 4, 2.

Chap. VI.

JUSTINIAN’S CHURCH AND THE MOSQUE EL AKSA.

245

CHAPTER VI.

JUSTINIAN’S CHURCH AND THE MOSQUE EL AKSA.

The fourth of the great churches which adorned the Haram area in the
early ages of Christianity belongs to a totally different category from the
three just described, which were built by Constantine or his mother. They
were erected in honour of the Son, to commemorate his Passion, and to
sanctify the spots where he suffered and was buried, and they sufficed for
the faith of that age. Before Justinian’s time, however, a new article of
faith had been added to the creed, and Mariolatry had assumed an import-
ance almost equal to the worship in earlier times only accorded to the Son.
No ecclesiastical establishment could consequently be considered complete
without a church dedicated to the Mother of Clod (jfj OeoTOKoi). This want
Justinian undertook to supply. In doing so, however, he was not, like his
predecessor, bound to any particular spot, but it was deemed indispensable
it should be near, practically attached, to the other churches erected by
CoDstantine.

We do not know sufficiently how the northern portion of the Haram
area was occupied at that time to be able to explain why he did not place
his church on the north side of the Basilica of Constantine. Possibly it may
have been occupied by the residences or other ecclesiastical offices belonging
to that establishment. In the time of the Crusades, this certainly seems to
have been the case,1 and it may have been so in Justinian’s time. But, from
whatever cause, it is certain that he chose the south-eastern angle, notwith-
standing the difficulties it presented in consequence of the inequality of its
levels, and of its being hemmed in between the Temple and the steep valley
of the Kidron. The description of the building by Procopius and the hints we
get from Antoninus are so circumstantial and so distinct that no author of
any importance, that I am acquainted with, doubts that the church stood in
the southern portion of the Haram area. Some, it is true, like De Vogue,2
place it actually within the precincts of the ancient Temple, and assume that
the present mosque El Aksa is, or was, Justinian’s church, converted into a
mosque. Of all the strange theories which the defenders of the present sepulchre

1 “ Ab aquilone ” (from the Templum Domini) “ idem atrium angustatur in parte propter adjunctionem

claustri dominorum.” John of Wurzburg, Tobler’s ed. p. 129. 2 Vide Appendix V.

246 CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Part III.

have been forced to adopt, this is one of the most absurd and untenable ;
in the first place, because it is known and universally admitted that, from
the time of Julian’s frustrated attempts in the fourth century till the time of
Euty chius, in the eighth at least ( ante , page 182), the site of the Temple of the
Jews was held to be accursed by the Christians, and the idea, of Justinian
building his Mary Church within it, is too preposterous to be for one moment
entertained. In the next place, it is contradicted by every word in the
description of Procopius. What he tells us is that the site he chose was so
uneven that he was obliged to expend immense treasures to bring up the
foundation to a sufficient height for a situation for his church.1 Had he
chosen the position of the Aksa, all he would have had to do would have
been to clear away some ancient remains, “ veterum ruinarum reliquias,” as
Arculfus tells us Abd-el-Malek did, and he would have secured a foundation
so solid and level as not to require the expenditure of one penny piece for this
purpose. Had he elected to erect it on the site of the ancient Temple, there
was a perfectly level and solid foundation 600 feet square, on any part of which
he might have erected buildings of double the extent we are led to expect he
ever contemplated. And, thirdly, we have, after Justinian’s time, a detailed
account of the cession of the Temple area, by the patriarch Sophronius to
Omar, on his undertaking to erect only one place of prayer in Jerusalem, and
we have detailed accounts of the buildings of Omar and Abd-el-Malek,
which make it quite certain that the Aksa was built by them from the
foundations, while there is absolutely no hint or complaint before the eleventh
century that the Moslems had violated the terms of Omar’s treaty, and had
appropriated Justinian’s or any other church to their purposes.

Most of the facts bearing on this question have already been alluded to
in the preceding pages, and I shall have again occasion to recur to them in
Appendix V., when noticing De Yogiie’s views on the subject; meanwhile,
the three facts just quoted will probably suffice to show that the Aksa is
not Justinian’s church, nor situated in the same locality. If, therefore, this
church stood within the southern limits of the Haram area, there is absolutely
no place for it but in that angle, where, as is shown above, it seems now
quite certain that Solomon’s palace once stood.

Among the minor points connected with the topography of Jerusalem,
there are few more perplexing or mysterious than our utter ignorance of how
this angle was occupied from the time of the Captivity to that of Justinian.
That the palace was burnt when the city was taken is more than probable ;
but even supposing it was not rebuilt and occupied as a palace after the
return, it is most improbable that so valuable a site would have been allowed
to lie waste or covered with ruins. It must have been utilised in some way

1 Vide Appendix III.

Chap. VI.

JUSTINIAN'S CHUKCH AND THE MOSQUE EL AKSA.

247

or other ; yet we have not in Josephus or any other author a hint that
would guide us to a knowledge of the manner in which this was done. The
east front of the Temple is not, apparently, mentioned in the ‘ Wars of
the Jews.’ The Romans never attacked that side of the Temple, though
it would appear to have been even more vulnerable than the front protected
by the tower Antonia. It almost seems as if Lewin 1 and Sandie2 were right,
that there was a “ so-called Kidron ravine ” distinct from “ the Kidron valley,”
which ran past this front or angle, and that the north-east angle really stood
on a precipice, as Josephus asserts.3 This, however, can only be ascertained
when excavations are made, which have not yet been attempted, and will
hardly be allowed while the present state of affairs lasts.

What Procopius tells of this building, is this.4 The Emperor, having
determined to erect a temple to the Mother of Grod, chose a site which, unlike
that of the other churches of the city, was steep and rugged, and did not
possess either on the south or east sides sufficient space for an establishment
such as he wished to erect ; he, consequently, was obliged to carry up v7alls
or piers from the foundation, and join them with arches till the structure
reached the level of the rest of the sacred area ( kvOiixevot o-wdurovcrL tt)v
oiKoSofj-iav tco dWco tov re/xevovs IS d<f>eb), so that one half of the structure rested
on the solid rock, one half hung in the air on the substructure so raised.
This description fits exactly with the state of affairs we now find in this angle
of the Haram area, but does not apply in the remotest degree to anything
known to exist elsewhere ; especially so as regards the levels, for the
pavement supported by the arches in the south-east angle is exactly on the

same level (contours 2409, 2412) as the floor of the Grolgotha Church and

that of the Basilica of Constantine. He then goes on to narrate how the
Emperor, in order to get stones of sufficient size for this great undertaking,
was obliged to open new quarries for the new work, and chariots so large
as to require 40 chosen oxen to draw them ; all which would justify the belief
that the whole substructure of the south-east angle, 80 feet below the present
surface, was the work of Justinian, if it were not, as stated above, that we
have strong reasons for believing it to be the work of Solomon. Then follows
a description of the pains he took, and at what enormous cost he got timbers

of sufficient length and sufficient scantling for the roof of his church, and

marble pillars of great beauty to adorn the interior. He then describes the
arrangement of the parts, but without dimensions, and in such a manner
that, as in the case with almost every verbal description that has come down
to us from antiquity, it is impossible to feel much confidence in any restoration.

1 Sketch of Jerusalem, pp. 208, 217.

2 Horeh and Jerusalem, p. 259.

3 B. J. vi. 4, 2.

* De ^Edificiis Justiriiani, v. 6. The passage is too

long to print in extenso in the text, but a translation of
it will be found in Appendix III., to which the reader is
referred.

AREA jr : 0FW JEW

73. — Diagram explanatory of the Probable Arrangement of Justinian’s Buildings in the
South-east Angle of the Haram.

Chap. VI.

JUSTINIAN’S CHUKCH AND THE MOSQUE EL AKSA.

249

That shown in the woodcut on the opposite page must be considered as only
tentative, and open to any amount of criticism and emendation.

It seems probable that the church itself stood on that part of the founda-
tion which is solid, and lay in a direction east and west ; not only because
eastern orientation was then becoming fashionable in the Greek Church, but
because Procopius mentions that it was surrounded by external colonnades on
all sides except the east, which favours this idea. The narthex, consequently,
would face the west ; but whether accessible from the Triple Gateway, or whether
that incline was closed, it is not now easy to determine without excavation.

Among other peculiarities, Procopius mentions two enormous pillars “ un-
surpassed by any in the world,” which stood before the door of the church
externally. This, however, occurs in the text after describing the interior,
but before alluding to the narthex. There must, therefore, have been another
door not on the west, but most probably where I have placed it at the northern
end of the transept, where it would be both convenient and appropriate. I
have assumed there was a transept from the spacing of the arches in the
southern vaults. When I last wrote on the subject, I assumed that this spacing
— 21, 30, and 21 feet — indicated the existence of an octagonal cupola over the
church supported on pendentives.1 A more careful study, however, of the
text of Procopius leads me now to believe that the roof was wholly of wood,
and the spacing would, therefore, indicate the existence of a transept. Except
as regards the design, the matter is not of much consequence, as no part of
the church stood actually over the vaults now open ; but their piers, either
partially opened or filled in, may reach quite across the church to the northern
side.

The vaults to the southward of the church were far too weak to support
either the Stoa Basilica, as Captain Warren supposes, or even the walls of a
church such as that just described ; but they are quite sufficiently strong to
support a cloister and the one-storeyed buildings of an Oriental monastery.
As such I have restored it, this theory being consonant with what Procopius
tells us of the Emperor’s intention and the general arrangement of such
buildings.

To the north I have placed the hospital and guest apartments ; but,
again, these arrangements are left very much to imagination. Though we
cannot believe that the hospital contained three thousand beds, as Antoninus
asserts, it was and must have been by far the most extensive establishment
of its class in Jerusalem, and seems to have been erected to supply the pilgrims
to the holy places with that accommodation which Constantine had neglected to
afford.

One other peculiarity is mentioned by Antoninus (570 a.d.), which is the

2 K

Topography of Jerusalem, p. 123.

250

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

tradition that the Prsetorium was situated here, and that in this church, along-
side Solomon’s Porch, was the judgment seat on which Pilate sat when Christ
was brought before him.1 This tradition is interesting as showing that the
memory of Solomon’s judgment seat still lingered — perhaps even the building
— down to the sixth century, and that the position of Solomon’s Porch was
then perfectly well known ; a fact that at once clears away a vast amount of
ingenious, but very unsound speculation.

In the plan of Justinian’s buildings (woodcut No. 73), I have reproduced
the judgment seat of Solomon as shown in the plan of his buildings (Plate I.),
merely altering its name to that of Sancta Sophia, which seems to be what it
bore in the middle ages. It is, of course, impossible to prove that this was
so, but it not only fits admirably with all we know of the locality, but also
with all the written indications we have regarding these buildings. The point
is, however, well worthy of further investigation, for if the identity of the
two buildings could be established, it would do more to connect the earliest
with the latest buildings in the Haram area than almost any other theory
that can be suggested.

Although the site chosen by Justinian was only about half the extent
of that occupied by the Temple of the Jews as rebuilt by Herod, it seems to
have been ample for the accommodation of a first-class religious establishment
as arranged in his day. There was room for a church as large as almost any
one we know of that age, always, of course, excepting his own Sancta Sophia
in his capital. Beyond that to the southward there was space enough — more,
indeed, than seems to have been required — for the accommodation of a very
large monastic establishment. To the north there was also abundant room for
a hospice or guest hall, and for a hospital for sick or infirm persons. Whether
these were arranged exactly as shown in the plan, it is impossible to say. All
that is proposed in the drawing is that it shall accord with Procopius’ description
as nearly as it is possible to understand it; and, secondly, that it shall be
convenient, and accord with the usual distribution of such establishments in
so far as they are known to us. Any attempt to carry it further into detail
would be, not only a waste of time, but in reality deceptive, as leading to the
presumption that materials did really exist for a more complete restoration.
As nothing except the arches and the piers that support them in the south-
east corner of the Haram area now exists on the spot, and there is nothing
beyond the description of Procopius, and one or two hints from other authors,
to guide us in our restoration, it seems in vain to hope for much greater

1 “ De Sion venimus in basilicam Sanctas Marias ubi
est congregatio magna monacborum, ubi sunt et xeno-
dochia virorum ac mulierum; mensas innumerabiles,
lecti asgrotorum sunt amplius tria millia. Et oravimus
in Prastorio ubi auditus est Dominus, et modo est basi-

lica Sanctas Sopliiae. Ante ruinas templi Salomonis
sub platea aqua decurrit ad fontem Siloam. Secus por-
ticum Salomonis in ipsa basilica est sedes, in qua sedit
Pilatus quando Dominum audivit,” &c. Ant. Mart. ed.
Tobler, p. 25.

Chap. VI.

JUSTINIAN’S CHUECH AND THE MOSQUE EL AKSA.

251

precision than is shown in woodcut No. 73, unless excavations should reveal
something which is at present hidden from us, and which, unfortunately, is not
under present circumstances likely to be disclosed to us within any reasonable
limit as to time.

If anything like fair dealing were tolerated in a controversy of this sort,
or the same logic were applied to buildings in Jerusalem that is applied to
buildings elsewhere, this one fact — which no one disputes — of Justinian erecting
his Mary Church where he did, would be considered as final in the controversy.
No reason can be assigned — at least, none has yet — for the Emperor choosing
the most difficult and expensive site about Jerusalem for this purpose, except it
was that all the Christian churches at that date were within the Haram area,
and it was consequently indispensable that his should be there also. Had the
Sepulchre then been where it now is, he probably would have acted as his
successors did, and placed his church where that of Sancta Maria Latina stood, in
the same relative position to the new holy places that Sancta Maria Gfrmca did
to the older Constantinian buildings, and he never would have thrust his great-
establishment between Solomon’s Porch of the Temple, and the brow of the
valley of Kidron. This, however, is one of those important questions which
writers about Jerusalem have taken special care to avoid answering. They
know perfectly well its difficulty, and that an incautious answer might betray
the weakness of their cause. Silence in that case is far safer, and they fancy
they may surely trust to the ignorance and indifference of their readers. They
are probably right, but if any one is really in earnest, and anxious for the
truth, perhaps he will try at least to explain what is now so mysterious.

El Aksa.

After all that has been said above about the selection by Omar of a
site for the erection of his mosque within the precincts of the Jewish Temple,
and of its erection there by Abd-el-Malek, under the name of El- Aksa,
a very few words will suffice to explain its bearing on the question of
its identity with the church of Justinian, with which it has been so frequently
confounded. Except for its situation and bearing on the questions now
occupying us, the Aksa has no claim on our attention. Its history, as above
explained, is perfectly well known, and is of no particular interest; and
whether looked at from a constructive or artistic point of view, there is
probably no building — certainly none of the same dimensions erected by the
Moslems — in any part of the world so totally devoid of merit of any class or
kind. No building, in fact, more richly deserved the description of it given
by Arculfus, who saw it in its first bloom, but said it was “ vili fabricata

252

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

opere.” 1 So badly, indeed, was it constructed that the whole of the south-
eastern angle fell down fifty-eight years after its completion (a.d. 747), and
when that was repaired, it tumbled down again thirty years afterwards.2
In both these cases the historian excuses the architect by throwing the blame
on an earthquake. The shock, however, must have been very slight and
extended over a very limited area, as it has not caused a crack or any
perceptible damage to either the Dome of the Rock or the Golden Gateway,
which, except in Jerusalem, would have been equally exposed to its violence.

74. — Mosquf. et, Aksa. (From a plan by Mr. Catherwood.)

The greatest damage, most probably, was done by the Knights Templar,
who took their name from their adopting this mosque as a residence and
stable, and were not at all likely to respect or spare a building that professed
to be either the accursed Temple of the Jews or the place of prayer of their
Paynim foes. But be this as it may, it is certain that the principal repairs
which the Aksa has undergone were executed after the destruction of the
neighbouring buildings erected by Justinian. The two pillars drawn by
De Vogue, plate xxxii. — one of which may be one of the two described

1 Ante, page 192.

Sauvnire’s translation of Mejr eel Din, pp. 59, 60.

Chap. VI.

JUSTINIAN’S CHURCH AND THE MOSQUE EL AKSA.

253

by Procopius as adorning the portal of the church — certainly were, at

all events, executed in the age of Justinian, and as certainly belonged to

some building of his. It is at the south end of the mosque, however, that

capitals and pillars of Justinian’s age, or copied from his style, are most
frequent (woodcut No. 56), and which, if his, could, consequently, only have been
placed there either in the tenth or eleventh century, or after the Crusades.
Unfortunately we do not know when Justinian’s great establishment was
broken up. We have no complaint, however, of any destruction of any
Christian buildings in Jerusalem anterior to the time of Moez, 969 a.d. It
certainly was in its glory when the monk Bernhard visited the place,

870 a.d.1 His description of it is so nearly identical with that of Antoninus2
that there can be no doubt that they are describing the same building, and
as little that the latter, at least, is speaking of those just erected by Justinian.
It may, however, have been one of the first to suffer in the persecution that
set in at the end of the following century.

Another evidence of the existence of Justinian’s church contemporaneously
with the Aksa is derived from the statistical account of the clergy of Jerusalem,
compiled in a.d. 808, and published by Tobler, in his valuable collection of tracts
relating to this subject.3 At that time this church seems to have ranked third
among the ecclesiastical establishments in Jerusalem.4 * Curiously enough, it
still bore, in the ninth century, the epithet of “ New,” which Procopius tells
us was apjilied to it in the sixth. Whether the various places mentioned in the
text were chapels in this establishment, or separate places of worship, is not
quite clear. My impression is that they were chapels of this one church.

Some may have been induced to give a hasty assent to the idea of the Aksa
being Justinian’s church from a cursory inspection of the plan, and from the
idea generally entertained, that a building with a central and side aisles, and
a clerestory over the central one, can only be a church. In the first place,
however, there is now, at least, no clerestory. The two ranges of windows
shown in De Yogiie'’s plate xxxi. are mere niches, and do not open to the
exterior, while some, at least, of the side aisles have been added long after
the original building was complete. It is, indeed, extremely difficult to say
what the original plan of the building may have been, but one thing, probably,
must be admitted, that, if Justinian had built it, he would not have turned the
apse to the south. It is quite true that Eastern orientation was not, in early
times, the absolute law it has become now on this side of the Alps ; but when
nothing interfered, it certainly was usual,6 especially in the Eastern Church ; and

1 Tobler’s edit. p. 91.

2 Ant. Mart., Tobler’s edit. p. 25.

3 Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae ex sceculo viii, ix, xii
et xv, pp. 77 et seqq.

4 “ In Sancta Maria Nova, quam Justinianus impe-

rator extruxit xn, in sancto Thalelaeo i, in Sancto Gre-

gorio ii, in Sancta Maria ubi nata fuit in probatica
v, inclusse Deo sacrata: xxv.” Tobler, Descript, p. 78.

5 Paulinus of Nola, in the very beginning of the
fifth century, apologises for the church not being turned
to the east, “ut mos usitatior est” (Paulini Nola?
Epist. xn ad Scverum).

254

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

as nothing prevented its being adopted here, there is little doubt that the apse
would have been turned to the east, had the Aksa originally been a Christian
church. Besides this, the fact must not be overlooked that the Arabs had no
architecture of their own, and, wherever they went, were dependent on the
natives of the countries they spread over, not only for the construction, but
for the plans, of their edifices. Even as late as the thirteenth century
(605 h.) we find them, in India, forced to employ Hindu builders to erect
their mosques, and in the first century of the Hegira they were entirely
dependent on Byzantine architects for any designs they might wish to carry
out. But it is useless pursuing this line of argument further here. Those
who believe that Justinian erected his Mary Church within the precincts of
the Temple of the Jews will believe anything, and certainly will not be
turned from their faith by any architectural or archaeological arguments that
may be addressed to them.

Part III.

CONCLUSION.

255

CONCLUSION.

Although the plates and woodcuts in the text of this work may, when
carefully studied, be sufficient to explain the plans of the various buildings
described in the preceding pages, it may add to the clearness of the narrative if
the whole of the later ones are grouped together as shown in Plate VII., so
that their relative positions and importance may be seized at a glance. The
position and dimensions of the area of the Temple as enlarged by Herod is,
of course, the foundation of the whole. If it was either greater or smaller
than here shown, or occupied any other portion of the Haram area, the whole
argument falls to the ground ; but enough has, I believe, been said to prove that
point beyond dispute. Though not quite so certain, or so well defined, the
position and dimensions of the Temple fortress — the Antonia — seem to have
been very nearly what they are represented in the plan. Beyond that, any
remains of ancient masonry that may exist on the west side of the Haram area
certainly belonged to the second wall, which, at the time of the Crucifixion,
was the external wall of the town. It extended northward from the Antonia
to some point of the present wall, eastward of the Damascus Gate, near which
its junction, probably, might be found, if looked for. That gate certainly
belonged to it, and the arch of the “ Ecce Homo ” now, probably, occupies the
position of one of its ancient gates. The first-named has been rebuilt by the
Saracens ; the second, probably, in the time of Hadrian, when the Romans
were too strong to require the walls any longer for defence, and used them
more for fiscal or police purposes ; or it may be that, after the building of
the third wall by Agrippa, this gate became an inner gate, and was rebuilt
as we now see it merely as the “ Temple Bar ” of an inner ward.

All the space eastward of the second wall, northward from the Temple,
and extending down to the brook Ividron, was, if I am not mistaken, the
great cemetery of the people of Israel, from the time when they wrested
the city from the Jebusites till its destruction by Titus. If this is so, the
relative positions of the Anastasis, the Basilica, and the Church of Golgotha,
are easily understood, and all the events of the Passion they were erected to
commemorate can be followed without difficulty or hesitation.

This being so, the reason also becomes perfectly plain why Justinian
chose the south-eastern angle of the Haram area for the erection of the fourth
great church which completed the Christian establishments of Jerusalem during

256

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

the Middle Ages. But more than all this, Plate VII. enables us to understand
without difficulty the events that followed on the capitulation of the city to
the khalif Omar in the seventh century. The site of the Temple had been
left desolate, and the Altar-stone covered with filth. But when Omar had
prayed on the steps of the Basilica of Constantine, he was led out by the
Golden Gateway, round to the Huldah or Water Gate, and, penetrating by it,
lie found the true Sakhra, which the Moslems worshipped till they inherited the
building Constantine had erected over the greater Sakhra, which he believed
to cover the sepulchre of Christ.

Whether looked at from an historical, a topographical, or an archaeological
point of view, the arrangement of the various buildings in all their successive
changes shown in this plate seems to me so consistent, and so easily intelligible,
that it is difficult to understand their being considered doubtful. On the other
hand, no other scheme, so far as I know, meets or even pretends to meet the
exigencies of the case in anything like the same fulness.

In addition to the considerations of an historical or a topographical nature,
there is still one of an artistic character, which can hardly be too often or
too strongly insisted upon, and to which it may be as well again to allude
to before concluding. It is the extreme beauty both of the design and
decoration of the Dome of the Rock as compared with the total absence
of these characteristics in the Aksa. The difference is curiously illustrative of
the history of art, and has never, so far as I know, been sufficiently insisted
upon by writers on Jerusalem.

Even now, notwithstanding recent discoveries, we have very little means
of forming correct views of what the external appearance of the Dome of the
Rock may have been when first erected. The lower casing of marble is
certainly jDart 0f the original design, though a good deal damaged by modern
repairs and alterations, and by the insertion of fragments from other buildings.

The upper arcade is, also, certainly part of the original design ; but how
the intermediate storey was adorned is not so clear. We ought not, however,
to expect much, as it was by no means the fashion to adorn the exterior of
Christian buildings to any great extent in Constantine’s time. In order,
apparently, to distinguish them from Pagan buildings of the same class, all
their wealth of ornament was lavished on their interiors, leaving the outside
comparatively plain, and a simple fa<^ade of ashlar work may consequently
have been all that was originally designed.

Unlike the confused patchwork of the Aksa, few buildings have been so
little altered internally as the Dome of the Rock, and its effect must have
been, when first erected, very much what it is now. The one great change
has been the introduction of those beautiful windows of Persian stained glass
in the sixteenth century. They are beautiful works of art in themselves, and,
by subduing the light, add very much to the solemn effect of the interior. The

Part III.

CONCLUSION.

257

windows may, however, have been originally filled with pierced marble slabs,
like those drawn in De Vogue’s ‘ Syrie Centrale ’ (plates 13 and 14), or those
figured by Nesbitt on plates xi.-xiv. of the 40th volume of the ‘ Archaaologia.’
These last are admirably adapted, especially plates xiii. and xiv., to subdue the
light sufficiently, while the white light so introduced would be more favourable,
to the effect of the mosaics, than the coloured light of the present windows, and
would have displayed the richness of the verde antique and other marble columns
to more advantage than is now possible. It is not, however, only to mosaics
and marbles that this interior owes its effect, but to the exquisite proportions
of the parts, and to the mode in which the whole design is so admirably
adapted to its one purpose of fixing the attention on the Sacred rock and its
Holy cave, and of proclaiming in the most unmistakable manner that it was
to honour them that it was erected.

As before stated, except the Taje Mahal and one or two of the great
Indian sepulchres, I know of no tomb or tomblike building in the whole
world that can compare in beauty of proportion, or in solemnity of effect,
with this, the earliest effort of purely Christian architectural art.

When from this beautiful building we turn to the Aksa, we find a
totally different state of things — a heterogeneous mass of incongruous parts
thrown together without either elegance of proportion or beauty of detail,
making up a structure of a totally dissimilar class, and belonging certainly to
quite a different age from the beautiful octagon in its immediate proximity.
It is a curious fact that in none of the various rebuildings of the Aksa do the
Saracens seem to have introduced any of those exquisite details which are found
in all their mosques at Cairo or Damascus. The finest part of the building is
undoubtedly the northern fa<j:ade and porch, but this was added after the
Crusades, and its lines are not carried round on either flank. The present
dome, too, seems a comparatively modern addition, and though the same is
true of that over the Rock, this is very inferior to that one either in extent
or in beauty of outline.

It may of course be difficult for those who have never visited Jerusalem
to realise the differences existing between these two buildings, especially as
the Aksa has never been properly illustrated. De VogikTs work, and Karl
Haag’s and Karl Werner’s drawings, have made the features of the Dome of
the Rock familiar to the public; but no artist would waste his time on such
a building as the Aksa. De Vogue gives only two sections (plate xxxi.), and
these on so small a scale as not to convey any real idea of the style. In my
‘ Ancient Topography of Jerusalem’ I have given views of the interiors of both,
which are sufficient for the purpose {ante, woodcuts Nos. 55 and 5(3) ; but from
the fact of their being engraved in different styles, the comparison is not so
obvious as it might have been made if both had been either line engraving
or both mezzotints. There are, however, two photographs of these interiors

2 l

258

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA.

Part III.

published by the Palestine Exploration Fund, which are easily procurable, and
the examination of which ought to satisfy any one that the buildings are neither
in the same style nor of the same age ; and if this is so, all the myths about
their being both built by Abd-el-Malek fall at once to the ground, even if
there were not such a complete catena of written evidence to establish how
utterly untenable any such hypothesis can be proved to be.

Nothing has been said in the preceding pages regarding the so-called
Holy Sepulchre in the town, for the simple reason that, if I am right in
supposing it proved that the four great churches of Jerusalem originally stood
in the Harare area, this church is a convicted forgery. This has, indeed,
been suspected by many of the best topographers of Jerusalem, from the days
of Korte 1 downwards, owing to the impossibility of reconciling the situation
with the facts as narrated by the Evangelists ; but the argument has hitherto
generally failed to carry conviction to most minds, from the inability of those
who maintained it to provide a substitute. Now, however, that it can be
proved to demonstration that the Dome of the Rock is the building which
Constantine built over what he, at all events, believed to be the sepulchre of
Christ — cadit queestio — Constantine did not build two sepulchres in Jerusalem.
A choice must consequently be made ; and when the subject is honestly and
fairly approached, there is little doubt that most people will select that one
which accords with every word of the Bible narrative, in preference to the
other, with which the events of the Passion, as narrated by the Evangelists,
cannot possibly be reconciled.

During the last thirty years, nothing has occurred to throw any fresh light
on the subject of the transference of the Holy Sepulchre, from the eastern to the
western hill. There is therefore little or nothing to be added to what was stated
at length in the third part of ‘ The Ancient Topography of Jerusalem’ (pp. 156,
187). The principal facts connected with this transaction were then clear, as
they are now. There is no complaint anywhere, before the time of El-Hakim,
the mad khalif of Egypt, of the Saracens having been guilty of any infraction
of the treaty made by the khalif Omar with the patriarch Sophronius. He, in a.d.
1009, destroyed the Basilica of Constantine — “ solo co-sequavit” — and appropriated
the tomb of Christ to the purposes of his own religion, as is abundantly confirmed
by the Kufic inscription afterwards added, in mosaic, on its walls by one of his
successors. At the time that El-TIakim committed this outrage on their holy
places, he expelled the Christian inhabitants from Jerusalem, and allowed them no
access to the place during his lifetime. When they crept back after his death,
they naturally built for their own purposes a church in their own quarter of
the town, and erected therein a Sepulchre at which the Easter rites might be

1 Jonas Kortens Reise nacli dem Gelobten Lande, &c., Altona, 1741-48.

Part III.

CONCLUSION.

259

performed. As time wore on, this became, as a matter of course, the Sepulchre
of Christ at Jerusalem, and pilgrims made their offerings, and had their faith
strengthened by worshipping at this shrine. Besides being securely situated in
their own quarter of the town, the spot selected for the new church had the
further advantage of being in the immediate proximity of a group of ancient
Jewish graves 1 still existing there, which gave apparent authenticity to the
tradition that the “ Tegurium ” they had erected was really nigh to the “ place of
a skull.”

In addition to these advantages, the arrangements of the new church were,
according to the ideas then prevalent, in many respects superior to those of the
old group. It united under one roof, besides the place of Crucifixion and the Holy
Sepulchre, all the localities of the Passion described by the Evangelists, and had
— what was an almost indispensable adjunct to a sacred locality in Palestine —
a cave in which the Cross was found in some mysterious manner by Holy
Helena. It had also a choir and apse turned towards the east, which, in the
eyes of mediaeval churchmen, was a very superior arrangement to that of
the Basilica of Constantine with its western hemicycle.

With all these advantages, it is little to be wondered at that the Christian
inhabitants of Jerusalem willingly accommodated themselves to the new locality,
and that pilgrims in the eleventh century were easily persuaded that the localities
pointed out to them were really those in which the scenes of the Passion had
actually been enacted. Ninet}^ years had elapsed since the destruction of Constan-
tine’s Basilica by El-Hakim before these Western pilgrims came back, with arms in
their hands, to rescue from the hands of the infidels, the Sepulchre where they had
worshipped. At that time, no one was living in Jerusalem who could have re-
membered the buildings in the Haram being in the possession of the Christians,
and they and their fathers had always worshipped in the church in the town. In
the illiterate East, memory soon fades, and the growth of tradition is much more
rapid than in the soberer West. The time was therefore ample for the obliteration
of the knowledge of the true facts of the case in so far as the general public were
concerned ; nor should we feel surprised or indignant at the conduct of the priests,
or of those who knew the truth, on this occasion. They acted in precisely the
same manner, and were actuated by the same motives, as nine-tenths of those who
have taken up the controversy in the nineteenth century, and who think that the
faith of the multitude must be protected against the inopportune suggestions of
scientific investigations.

Notwithstanding its being a counterfeit, if the sepulchre in the city
possessed any beauty of design or detail, or any evidence of antiquity, it
might have been useful to introduce it in an illustration of some things,

1 Described by M. Ganneau, in the Quarterly Statement of the Palestine Exploration Fund for April 1877
and by Major Wilson, in the July number of the same publication of that year.

260

CHRISTIAN AND SARACENIC BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Part III.

or as a means of comparison. But it has nothing of the sort. On its
southern fa£ade there is a Corinthian cornice, used unsymmetrically as a string
course, and evidently borrowed from the ruins of the Basilica of Constantine
after it was destroyed by El-Hakim in the beginning of the eleventh century.
In the interior there are one or two capitals borrowed in like manner from
the buildings of Justinian after their destruction, probably, about or before the
same time. Beyond this, everything is avowedly subsequent to the age of
the Crusades, and not good of its kind even then ; and what little merit it
may have had was wiped out by the fire of 1808, when the present modern
abomination was substituted, in the rotunda, for what had the respectable
antiquity of seven centuries, though this, even then, was less than half of that
of the Dome of the Rock.

To all this it is needless to revert again after all that has been said

above. So long as the Dome of the Rock and the Golden Gateway remain,

the latter more especially, as a festal portal of the age of Constantine, every one
who desires truth, and truth only, must admit that it was on the eastern
hill that the sepulchre was situated, in the words of Eusebius : — “ On the very
spot which witnessed the Saviour’s sufferings, a new Jerusalem was con-

constructed over against the one so celebrated of old, which since the foul

stain of guilt brought upon it by the murder of the Lord had experienced
the extremity of desolation, the effect of divine judgment on its impious people.
It was opposite to that city that the Emperor began to rear a monument to the
Saviour’s victory over death, with rich and lavish magnificence.” 1 And there
it stands now, and there any one may see it who cares to realise how nobly
Constantine fulfilled the pious aspirations he had conceived.

1 Kar’ auro to (tu>ti][hov paprvpiov i) via KareaKevdpTO.
'lepovaaXrjp ; avTiTTpocronTros ttj ttoXci jSoiopevp, t) perd rp
KvpioKTovov piai(j)oviav eprjpias en ea\ara TrepiTpaneicra,
Biktjv enae dvaaeftcov oiKrjTopw. T avry S’ ovv dvriKpvs

3acn\evs t p Kara roO davdrov aoirpiov viktjv nAouarair
cat dapiXiaiv avinfeov (piXoripiais. Vita Constantini,
ii. 33.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I.

THE MIDDOTH.1

JPUasurcnmtts of tfie temple.

Chapter I.

1. The priests guarded the Sanctuary in three places, in the House Abtinas,2 in the
House Nitzus,3 and in the House Moked ; 4 and the Levites in twenty-one places, five at
the five gates of the Mountain of the House, four at its four corners inside, five at the five
gates of the Court, four at its four corners outside, and one in the chamber of the Offering,
and one in the chamber of the Yail, and one behind the House of Atonement.

2. The captain of the Mountain of the House went round to every watch in succession
with torches flaming before him, and to every guard who did not stand forth, the captain said,
“ Peace be to thee.” If it appeared that he slept, he beat him with his staff; and he had
permission to set fire to his cushion.5 And they said, “ what is the voice in the Court ? ”
“ It is the voice of the Levite being beaten, and his garments burned, because he slept
on his guard.” 6 Piabbi Eleazer, the son of Jacob, said, “ once they found the brother
of my mother asleep, and they burned his cushion.”

3. There were 'five gates to the Mountain of the House, two Huldah gates in the
south which served for going in and out, Ivipunus in the west served for going in and
out ; Tadi 7 in the north served for no (ordinary) purpose. Upon the east gate -was
portrayed the city Shushan. Through it one could see the High Priest who burned the
heifer, and all his assistants going out to the Mount of Olives.

1 Printed, with his kind permission, from the Eev.
Dr. Barclay’s work on the Talmud just published by Mr.
Murray. The Hebrew words in italics and in brackets
have been inserted by me for convenience of reference,
as they are quoted in the text. — Jas. F.

2 A famous maker of incense.

3 Sparkling.

4 Burning. The watch at certain gates seems to

have been hereditary in certain families. Just as at the

present time the custody of Rachel’s tomb is the privi-
lege of a certain family in Jerusalem. Each guard
consisted of 10 men, so that there were 210 Levites in
the 21 stations. The three more important places con-
tained guards of both Levites and Priests ; 30 of each.
There were therefore 240 Levites on guard each night.

6 He rolled up his overcoat and laid it down for a
cushion.

6 Rev. xvi. 15.

7 Obscurity.

262

APPENDICES.

Appendix I.

4. In the court were seven gates — three in the north, and three in the south, and

one in the east. That in the south was called the gate of Flaming, the second after it, the

gate of Offering ; the third after it the Water-gate. That in the east was called the gate
Nicanor. And this gate had two chambers, one on the right, and one on the left ; one the
chamber of Phineas, the vestment keeper, and the other the chamber of the pancake maker.

5. And at the gate Nitzus on the north was a kind of cloister with a room \Alijah ]
built over it, where the priests kept ward above, and the Levites below ; and it had a door
into the Chel.1 Second to it was the gate of the offering. Third the House Moked.

6. In the House Moked were four chambers opening as small apartments into a saloon

— two in the Holy place, and two in the Unconsecrated place ; and pointed rails

separated between the Holy and the Unconsecrated. And what was their use ? The
south-west chamber was the chamber for offering. The south-east was the chamber for
the shew-bread. In the north-east chamber the children of the Asmoneans deposited the
stones of the altar which the Greek Kings had defiled.2 In the north-west chamber they
descended to the house of baptism.

7. To the House Moked were two doors ; one open to the Chel, and one open to the
court. Said Rabbi Judah, “ the one open to the court had a wicket, through which they
went in to sweep the court.”

8. The House Moked was arched, and spacious, and surrounded with stone divans,
and the elders of the Courses slept there with the keys of the court in their hands ; and
the young priests each with his pillow on the ground.

9. And there was a place a cubit square with a tablet of marble, and to it was fastened
a ring, and a chain upon which the keys were suspended. When the time approached for
locking, the priest lifted up the tablet by the ring, and took the keys from the chain and
locked inside, and the Levites slept outside. When he had finished locking, he returned the
keys to the chain, and the tablet to its place, laid his pillow over it, and fell asleep. If
sudden defilement happened, he rose and went out in the gallery that ran under the arch,
and candles flamed on either side, until he came to the house of baptism. Rabbi Eleazer, the
son of Jacob, says, “ in the gallery that went under the Chel, he passed out through Tadi.”

OUR BEAUTY BE UPON THEE IN THREE PLACES.

Chapter II.

1. The Mountain of the House was five hundred cubits square. The largest space was
on the south, the second on the east, the third on the north, and the least westward. In the
place largest in measurement was held most service.

2. All who entered the Mountain of the House entered on the right-hand side, and went
round, and passed out on the left : except to whomsoever an accident occurred, he turned
to the left. “ Why do you go to the left ? ” “I am in mourning.” “ He that dwelleth
in this House comfort thee.” “ I am excommunicate.” “ He that dwelleth in this House
put in thy heart (repentance), and they shall receive thee.” The words of Rabbi Mayer.

1 Platform or rampart.

2 1 Macc. ii. 25.

Appendix I.

MEASUREMENTS OF THE TEMPLE.

263

To him said Rabbi Jose, “ tbou bast acted as though they had transgressed against him
in judgment ; hut, may He that dwelleth in this House put in thy heart that thou hearken
to the words of thy neighbours, and they shall receive thee.

3. Inside of the (Mountain of the House) was a reticulated wall, ten hand-breadths

high ; and in it were thirteen breaches, broken down by the Greek kings. The

(Jews) restored, and fenced them, and decreed before them thirteen acts of obeisance. Inside
of it was the Chel, ten cubits broad, and twelve steps were there. The height of each
step was half a cubit, and the breadth half a cubit. All the steps there were in height half
a cubit, and in breadth half a cubit, except those of the porch. All the doors there were in
height twenty cubits, and in breadth ten cubits, except that of the porch. All the gateways
there had doors, except that of the porch. All the gates there had lintels, except Tadi ;
there two stones inclined one upon the other. All the gates there were transformed into
gold, except the gate Nicanor,1 because to it happened a wonder, though some said, “ because
its brass glittered like gold.”

4. And all the walls there were high, except the eastern wall, that the priest who
burned the heifer, might stand on the top of the Mount of Olives, and look straight into the
door of the Sanctuary when he sprinkled the blood.

5. The court of the women was one hundred and thirty-five cubits in length, by one
hundred and thirty-five in breadth. And in its four corners were four chambers, each forty
cubits square, and they had no roofs ; and so they will he in future, as is said, “ Then he
brought me forth into the utter court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the
court ; and, behold, in every corner of the court there was a court.” 2 In the four corners
of the court there were courts smoking, yet not smoking, since they were roofless. And
what was their use ? The south-east one was the chamber of the Nazarites, for there
the Nazarites cooked their peace-offerings, and polled their hair, and cast it under the pot.
The north-east was the chamber for the wood, and there the priests with blemishes gathered
out the worm-eaten wood. And every stick in which a worm was found, was unlawful
for the altar. The north-west was the chamber for the lepers. The south-west ? Rabbi
Eleazer, the son of Jacob, said, “ I forget for what it served.” Abashaul said, “ there they
put wine, and oil.” It was called the chamber of the house of oil. And it was open at first
and surrounded with lattice work, that the women might see from above and the men from
beneath, lest they should be mixed. And fifteen steps, corresponding to the fifteen steps in
the Psalms, ascended from it to the court of Israel ; upon them the Levites chanted. They
were not angular, hut deflected like the half of a round threshing-floor.

6. And under the court of Israel were chambers open to the court of the women.
There the Levites deposited their harps, and psalteries, and cymbals, and all instruments
of music. The court of Israel was one hundred and thirty-five cubits long, and eleven
broad ; and likewise the court of the priests was one hundred and thirty-five cubits long, and
eleven broad. And pointed rails separated the court of Israel from the court of the priests.
Rabbi Eleazer, the son of Jacob, said, “ there was a step a cubit high, and a dais [ Dukan |
placed over it. And in it were three steps each half a cubit in height.” We find that
the priests’ court was two cubits and a half higher than the court of Israel. The whole
court was one hundred and eighty-seven cubits in length, and one hundred and thirty-five

1 So called either because Nicanor, a Pharisee, had the

gate made in Alexandria, and though it was thrown
overhoard from a ship in a storm, it yet came safe to

land: or because Nicanor, a Greek prince, was slain
there in the time of the Asmoneans.

2 Ezekiel xlvi. 21.

264

APPENDICES.

Appendix I.

cubits in breadth, and the thirteen places for bowing were there. Abajose, the son of
Chanan, said, “ in front of the thirteen gates.” In the south near to the west were
the upper gate, the gate of flaming, the gate of the firstborn, the water gate. And

why is it called the water gate ? Because through it they bring bottles of water

for pouring out during the feast of Tabernacles. Babbi Eleazer, the son of Jacob, said,
“ through it the water returned out, and in future it will issue from under the threshold
of the house.” And opposite them in the north, near to the west, the gate of Jochania,
the gate of the offering, the gate of the women, the gate of music. And “ why was it
called the gate of Jochania?” “ Because through it Jochania went out in his captivity.”
In the east was the gate Nicanor, and in it two wickets, one on the right, and one on
the left, and two in the west which were nameless.

OUR BEAUTY BE UPON THEE, 0 MOUNTAIN OF THE HOUSE.

Chapter III.

1. The altar was thirty-two cubits square. It ascended a cubit, and receded a cubit.
This was the foundation. It remains thirty cubits square. It ascended five cubits, and
receded one cubit. This is the circumference. It remains twenty-eight cubits square. The
place for the horns was a cubit on either side. It remains twenty-six cubits square. The
place of the path for the feet of the priests was a cubit on each side. The hearth remains
twenty-four cubits square. Babbi Jose said, “at first it was only twenty-eight cubits
square.” It receded and ascended until the hearth remained twenty cubits square ; but
when the children of the captivity came up, they added to it four cubits en the north, and
four cubits on the west, like a gamma it is said ; and the altar was twelve cubits long by
twelve broad, being a square. One could say it was only “ a square of twelve ” 1 as is said.
Upon its four sides we learn that it measured from the middle twelve cubits to every side.
And a line of red paint girdled it in the midst to separate the blood sprinkled above from
the blood sprinkled below. And the foundation was a perfect walk along on the north side ;
and all along on the west, but it wanted in the south one cubit, and in the east one cubit.2

2. And in the south-western corner were two holes as two thin nostrils, that the blood
poured upon the western and southern foundation should run into them ; and it commingled
in a canal and flowed out into the Kidron.

3. Below in the plaster in the same corner there was a place a cubit square, with
a marble tablet, and a ring fastened in it. Through it they descended to the sewer and
cleansed it. And there was a sloping ascent3 to the south of the altar, thirty-two cubits
long by sixteen broad. In its western side was a closet, where they put the birds unmeet
for the sin-offering.

1 Ezekiel xliii. 16.

2 As this corner would have been in the tribe of
Judah, it was not added, that the whole altar might
remain in the tribe of Benjamin. Gen. xlix. 27.

3 This sloping ascent to the altar was strewn with
salt. This salt was brought from the mountain of

Sodom at the south of the Dead Sea. The salt was
intended to keep the priests from sloping and falling,
which might easily happen, as they were obliged to
minister barefooted. The coldness of the pavement
in winter, and eating so much flesh of the sacrifices,
brought various diseases on the priests.

Appendix I.

MEASUREMENTS OF THE TEMPLE.

265

4. Either the stones of the sloping ascent, or the stones of the altar, were from the
valley of Bethcerem.1 And they digged deeper than virgin soil, and brought from thence
perfect stones over which iron2 was not waved. For the iron defiles by touching. And a
scratch defiles everything. In any of them a scratch defiled, hut the others were lawful.
And they whitewashed them twice in the year ; once at the passover, and once at the feast of
Tabernacles. And the Sanctuary (was whitewashed) once at the passover. The Rabbi said,
“ every Friday evening they whitewashed them with a mop on account of the blood.” They
did not plaster it with an iron trowel, “ mayhap it will touch and defile.” Since iron is
made to shorten the days of man, and the altar is made to lengthen the days of man, it is not
lawful, that what shortens should be waved over what lengthens.

5. And there were rings to the northern side of the altar, six rows of four each :
though some say four rows of each. Upon them they slaughtered the holy beasts. The
slaughter-house was at the north side of the altar. And in it were eight dwarf pillars with
a beam of cedar wood over them. And in them were fastened iron hooks — three rows to
each pillar. Upon them they hung up (the bodies), and skinned them upon marble
tables between the pillars.

6. The laver was between the porch and the altar, but inclined more to the south.
Between the porch and the altar were twenty-two cubits, and there were twelve steps. The
height of each step was half a cubit, and its breadth a cubit — a cubit — a cubit — a landing-

three cubits — a cubit — a cubit and a landing three cubits. And the upper one a cubit a

cubit, and the landing four cubits. Rabbi Jehudah said, “the upper a cubit, — a cubit,
and the landing five cubits.”

7. The doorway of the porch was forty cubits high, and twenty broad. Over it were
five carved oak beams. The lower one extended beyond the doorway a cubit on either side
The one over it extended a cubit on either side. It results that the uppermost was thirty
cubits ; and between each one there was a row of stones.

8. And stone buttresses 3 were joined from the wall of the sanctuary to the wall of the
porch, lest it should bulge. And in the roof of the porch were fastened golden chains, upon
which the young priests climbed up, and saw the crowns. As is said, “ And the crowns shall
be to Helem, and to Tobijah, and to Jedaiah, and to Hen, the son of Zephaniah, for a
memorial in the temple of the Lord.”4 And over the doorway of the Sanctuary was a
golden vine supported upon the buttresses. Every one who vowed a leaf, or a berry,
or a cluster, he brought it and hung it upon it. Said Rabbi Eleazer, the son of Zadok,
“ it is a fact, and there were numbered three hundred priests to keep it clear.”

OUR BEAUTY BE UPON THEE, 0 ALTAR.

1 House of the vineyard.

2 Deut. xxvii. 5.

3 “ Malteraoih shel milah. Malterali or ammaltera,

from the Greek peXadpov; milah, the Greek melia.” Note
from the Rev. Dr. Edersheim’s Jewish Social Life,
p. 304; but most important if the identity of the
Hebrew and Greek words can be maintained; which,

however, I see no reason for doubting. Although there
were four at least of these melathra in Herod’s screen,
and only one in Solomon’s, still the fact of their
existing in both goes far to justify the restorations
shadowed out in woodcut No. 35. — Jas. F.

4 Zechariah vi. 14.

266

APPENDICES.

Appendix 1.

Chapter IV.

1. The doorway of the Sanctuary 1 was twenty cubits in height, and ten in breadth.
And it had four doors, two within and two without, as is said, “ Two doors to the temple and
the holy place.” 2 The outside (doors) opened into the doorway to coyer the thickness of the
wall, and the inside doors opened into the Sanctuary to coyer (the space) behind the doors,
because the whole house was overlaid with gold excepting behind the doors. Eabbi Judah
said, “ they stood in the middle of the doorway, and like a pivot these folded behind them
two cubits and a half ; and of those two cubits and a half, half a cubit and a jamb on this
side, and half a cubit and a jamb on the other side.” It is said, “ two doors to two doors
folding back, two leaves to one door and two leaves to the other.” 3

2. And the great gate had two wickets, one in the north, and one in the south.
Through the one in the south no man ever entered. And with regard to it Ezekiel declared,
as is said, “ The Lord said unto me ; this gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no
man shall enter in by it ; because the Lord, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it,
therefore it shall be shut.” 4 The priest took the key, and opened the wicket, and went into
the little chamber, and from the chamber to the Sanctuary. Eabbi Judah, “he went in the
thickness of the wall, until he found himself standing between the two gates, and he opened
the outside gates from inside, and the inside from outside.”

3. And there were thirty-eight little chambers, fifteen in the north, fifteen in the south,
and eight in the west. The northern and southern ones were (placed) five over five, and five
over them ; and in the west three over three, and two over them. To each were three doors :
one to the little chamber to the right, one to the little chamber to the left, and one to the
little chamber over it. And in the north-eastern corner were five gates : one to the little
e*hamber on the right, and one to the little chamber over it, and one to the gallery, and one
to the wicket, and one to the Sanctuary.

4. The lowest row was five cubits, and the roofing six cubits, and the midle row six,
and the roofing seven, and the upper was seven, as is said, “ the nethermost chamber was
five cubits broad, and the middle six cubits broad, and the third seven cubits broad.” 5

5. And a gallery (winding stair) ascended from the north-eastern corner to the south-
western corner. Through it they went up to the roofs of the little chambers. One went up
in the gallery with his face to the west. So he proceeded all along the northern side, till he
reached the west. On reaching the west, he turned his face southward, going along the west
side, till he reached the south. On reaching the south, with his face to the east, he went
along the south side till he arrived at the door of the upper storey \Alijaii], because the door
of the upper storey \Alijah\ opened in the south side. And at the door of the upper
storey [ Alijali ] were two cedar beams. By them they went up to the roof of the upper
storey [Alijali], and on its summit rails separated between the Holy and the Holy of Holies.
And in the attic \_Alijah\ trapdoors opened to the Holy of Holies. Through them they let
down the workmen in boxes, lest they should feast their eyes in the Holy of Holies.

1 The Kabbis say that “ the world is like an eye.

The ocean is the white of the eye. The pupil is

Jerusalem. And the image in the pupil is the Sanctuary.”

2 Ezekiel xli. 23.
4 Ezekiel xliv. 2.

3 Ezekiel xli. 24.
6 1 Kings vi. 6.

Appendix I.

MEASUREMENTS OF THE TEMPLE.

267

6. The Sanctuary was a square of one hundred cubits, and its height one hundred. The
foundation six cubits, and the height (of the wall) forty cubits, and the string course 1 one
cubit, and the rain channel two cubits, and the beams one cubit, and the covering plaster
one cubit ; and the height of the upper storey \Alijah~\ was forty cubits, and the string
course one cubit, and the rain channel two cubits, and the beams one cubit, and the covering
plaster one cubit, and the battlement three cubits, and the scarecrow one cubit. Babbi
Judah said, “ the scarecrow was not counted in the measurement ; but the battlement was
four cubits.”

7. From east to west was one hundred cubits, the wall of the porch five, and the porch
eleven, and the wall of the Sanctuary six, and the interior forty, and the partition space
(between the Vails) one, and the Holy of Holies twenty cubits. The wall of the Sanctuary
was six, and the little chamber six,. and the wall of the little chamber five. From north to
south was seventy (cubits). The wall of the gallery five, the gallery three, the wall of the
little chamber five, the little chamber six, the wall of the Sanctuary six, its interior twenty,
the wall of the Sanctuary six, the little chamber six, the wall of the little chamber five, the
place for the descent of the water three, and the wall five cubits. The porch was extended
beyond it fifteen cubits in the north, and fifteen in the south ; and this space was called
“ the house of the instruments of slaughter,” because the knives were there deposited. And
the Sanctuary was narrow behind and broad in front, and it was like a lion, as is said,
“Ho! Ariel, the city where David dwelt,2 as a lion is narrow behind and broad in front, so
the Sanctuary is narrow behind and broad in front.”

OUR BEAUTY BE UPON THEE, DOOR OF THE SANCTUARY.

Chapter V.

1. The length of the whole court3 was one hundred and eighty-seven cubits. The
breadth one hundred and thirty-five. From east to west one hundred and eighty-seven.
The place for the tread of the feet of Israel was eleven cubits. The place for the tread
of the priests eleven cubits. The altar thirty-two. Between the porch and the altar
twenty-two cubits. The Temple one hundred cubits ; and eleven cubits behind the House of
Atonement.

2. From north to south, one hundred and thirty-five cubits. From the sloping ascent
to the altar sixty-two. From the altar to the rings eight cubits. The space for the rings
twenty-four. From the rings to the tables four. From the tables to the pillars four.
From the pillars to the wall of the court eight cubits. And the remainder lay between the
sloping ascent and the wall and the place of the pillars.

3. In the court were six chambers, three in the north, and three in the south. In the
north, the chamber of salt, the chamber of Parva, the chamber of washers. In the chamber
of salt they added salt to the offering. In the chamber of Parva they salted the skins

1 Curiously graven and gilt.

2 Isaiah, xxix. 1.

3 “ The king only, and no man else ” (remarks Mai-
monides) “ might sit in the court of the temple in any

place ; and even this privilege was confined to a king of
the family of David.” Cunseus further observes, “ that
the king was esteemed nearer to God than the priests
themselves, and a greater president of religion.”

268

APPENDICES.

Appendix I.

of the offering ; and upon its roof was the house of baptism for the High Priest on the day of
atonement. In the chamber of washers they cleansed the inwards of the offerings ; and
from thence a gallery extended up to the top of the house of Parva.

4. In the south were the chamber of wood, the chamber of the captivity, and the
chamber of hewn stone [Gazith]. The chamber of wood, said Eabbi Eleazer, the son of
Jacob, “ I forget for what it served.” Abashaul said, “ the chamber of the High Priest was
behind them both, and the roof of the three was even. In the chamber of the captivity was
sunk the well with the wheel attached to it, and from thence water was supplied to the
whole court. In the chamber of hewn stone [Gazith] the great sanhedrin of Israel sat, and
judged the priesthood, and the priest in whom defilement was discovered, clothed in black,
and veiled in black, went out and departed ; and when no defilement was found in him,
clothed in white, and veiled in white, he went in and served with his brethren the priests.
And they made a feast-day, because no defilement was found in the seed of Aaron the Priest,
and thus they said, “ Blessed be the place. Blessed be He, since no defilement is found in
the seed of Aaron. And blessed be He who has chosen Aaron and his sons to stand and
minister 1 before the Lord in the House of the Holy of Holies.

OUR BEAUTY BE UPON THEE, WHOLE COURT ;

AND COMPLETION TO THEE, TRACT

MEASUREMENTS.

1 The Temple services were arranged by the council
of fourteen. This council was composed of the High
Priest, the Sagan (the deputy or Suffragan of the High

Priest), two Katholikin, who had charge of the treasuries,
three Gfizbarim, who were assistants of the Katholikin,
and seven Ammarcalin, who had charge of the gates.

Appendix II.

KUFIC INSCRIPTION IN DOME OF THE ROCK.

269

APPENDIX II.

TRANSLATION OF KUFIC INSCRIPTION IN THE DOME OF THE ROCK.

By E. H. Palmer, M.A.

(Quarterly Reports, Palestine Exploration Fund, 1870-71, pp. 164, 165.)

§ 6. — Mosaic Inscription in the Cubbet es'Sakhrah.

The erection of the Cubbet es Sakhrah, JanTi el Aksa, and the restoration of the temple
area by £Abd el Melik, are recorded in a magnificent Kufic inscription in mosaic, running
round the colonnade of the first-mentioned building. The name of £Abd el Melik has been
purposely erased, and that of Abdallah el Mamun fraudulently substituted ; but the
short-sighted forger has omitted to erase the date, as well as the name of the original
founder, and the inscription still remains a contemporary record of the munificence of
£Abd el Melik. The translation is as follows: —

“ In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate ! There is no god but God
alone ; He hath no partner ; His is the kingdom, His the praise. He giveth life and death,
for He is the Almighty. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate ! There is
no god hut God alone ; He hath no partner ; Mohammed is the Apostle of God ; pray God
for him. The servant of God, ‘Abdallah, the Imam al Mamun [ read £Abd el Melik],
Commander of the Faithful, built this dome in the year 72 (a.d. 691). May God accept it
at his hands, and he content with him, Amen ! The restoration is complete, and to God be
the praise. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate ! There is no god but God
alone ; He hath no partner. Say He is the one God, the Eternal ; He neither begetteth nor
is begotten, and there is no one like Him. Mohammed is the Apostle of God; pray God
for him. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate ! There is no god but
God, and Mohammed is the Apostle of God; pray God for him. Verily, God and His angels
pray for the Prophet. Oh, ye who believe, pray for him, and salute ye him with salutations
of peace. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate ! There is no god, but God
alone ; to Him be praise, who taketh not unto Himself a son, and to whom none can be a
partner in His kingdom, and whose patron no lower creature can be; magnify ye Him.
Mohammed is the Apostle of God ; pray God, and His angels, and apostles for him ; and
peace be upon him, and the mercy of God. In the name of God, the Merciful, the
Compassionate ! There is no god but God alone ; He hath no partner ; His is the kingdom,
and His the praise; He giveth life and death, for He is Almighty. Verily, God and His
angels pray for the Prophet. Oh ye who believe, pray for him and salute him with
salutations of peace. Oh ! ye who have received the Scriptures, exceed not the bounds
in your religion, and speak not aught but truth concerning God. Verily, Jesus Christ, the
son of Mary, is the Apostle of God, and His word which He cast over Mary, and a spirit
from Him. Then believe in God and His apostles, and do not say there are three gods ;

270

APPENDICES.

Appendix II.

forbear, ancl it will be better for yon. God is but One. Far be it from Him that He should
have a son. To Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heaven and in the earth, and God is a
sufficient protector. Christ doth not disdain to be a servant of God, nor do the angels who
are near the throne. Whosoever then disdains His service, and is puffed up with pride, God
shall gather them all at the last day. 0 God, pray for Thy apostle Jesus, the son of Mary ;
peace be upon me the day I am born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised to life again.
That is Jesus, the son of Mary, concerning whom ye doubt. It is not for God to take unto
Himself a son ; far be it from Him. If He decree a thing, He doth but say unto it, Be, and
it is. God is my Lord and yours. Serve Him, this is the right way. Glory to God, there
is no god but He, and the angels and beings endowed with knowledge, stand among the just.
There is no God but He, the Mighty, the Wise. Verily, the true religion in the sight
of God is Islam. Say praise be to God, who taketh not unto Himself a son ; whose partner
in the kingdom none can be ; whose patron no lowly creature can be. Magnify ye Him ! ” 1

1 This inscription, which is composed chiefly of
Coranic texts, is interesting both from a historical point
of view, and as showing the spirit in which Christianity
was regarded by the Muslims of these early times. It
has never before been published in its entirety. Its
preservation during the subsequent Christian occupation
of the city may occasion some surprise, as the Latins
(by whom the Cubbet es Sakhrah was turned into a

church) could not but have been offended at quotations
which so decidedly deny the Divinity of Christ and the
doctrine of the Trinity. It is probable, however, that
the Cufic character, in which it is written, was as unin-
telligible to the Christian natives of that time as it is
now, even to most of the learned Muslims of the present
day.

Appendix III.

PROCOPIUS’ ‘DE iEDIFICIIS.’

271

APPENDIX III.

TRANSLATION OF PARAGRAPH IN PROCOPIUS’ ‘ DE fEDIFICIIS.’

By the Rev. George Williams.1

(Holy City, vol. ii. pp. 369 et seqq.)

In Jerusalem, too, lie dedicated a Temple to the Virgin, to which no other can be
compared, and which is called by the natives, the “ New Church.” I will describe its
character, after premising that the city is for the most part hilly. The hills however
are not of earth, but rise up roughly and precipitously, with passages like a ladder,
stretching from the steep to the descent.

Now it so happens, that all the other buildings of the city are on one kind of ground,
being either built on the hill or on the level where the earth expands. But this Temple
alone is not so placed. The reason is, that the Emperor Justinian ordered it to he built on
the most prominent of the hills, with directions what character he required it to have
generally, and what breadth and length. The hills however had not sufficient space for
the completion of the work according to the Emperor’s order ; hut a fourth part of the Temple
was deficient, towards the South and the East, just where it is lawful for the priests to
perform their rites. Hence, the following device was conceived by the persons who had
charge of the work. They laid the foundations at the extreme of the flat ground, and
raised a building with equal height with the rock. When, then, they had brought it as
high as its extremity, they placed over the intervening space arches from the top of the
walls, and connected the building with the remainder of the Temple’s foundation. In this
way the Temple is in part founded on solid rock, and in part suspended ; the Emperor’s power
having contrived a space in addition to the hill.

The stones too of this building are not of such a size as we know elsewhere. For
the workmen who had charge of the task, contending against the difficulty of the site,
and labouring to gain a height equal and opposite to the rock, disdained all ordinary modes,
and had recourse to strange and altogether unprecedented devices. They hewed therefore
rocks of immense size from the mountains, which rise to an extraordinary height immediately
before the city, and having carved them skilfully, carried them thence as follows. First,
they made wagons of a size equal to the rocks, and placed a single stone in each wagon ;
when oxen, chosen by the Emperor’s order for their excellence, drew the stone with the
wagon, forty to each. Then, as it was impossible for the roads leading to the city to
bear these great wagons, they cut out to a considerable extent the mountains, and made

1 As there is no recognised translation of Procopius
into English, I have borrowed that from Mr. Williams’
work. As he is a firm believer in the identity of the

Aksawith the Church of Justinian, his translation will
not he suspected of any leaning towards my heretical
views. — Jas. F.

272

APPENDICES.

Appendix III.

a passage for tlie wagons, as they arrived. Thus they completed the Temple to an extra-
ordinary length, according to the wishes of the Emperor.

They also made its breadth in proportion, hut had the greatest difficulty to place
a roof upon the Temple. They went round, therefore, all the woods and thickets, and
whatever spot they could hear of as planted with trees of extraordinary height, until they
found a shady wood producing cedars which reached ever so great a height. With these,
then, they roofed the Temple, having raised its height equal in proportion to its width
and length.

So much was accomplished by the Emperor Justinian by the means of human power
and art. His pious confidence, however, which requited him with honour and co-operated
in this effort, went further : That is to say, the Temple had need of columns all round, not
inferior in appearance to the beauty of the precinct, and of such a size as might be likely
to support the weight of the superstructure. The place, however, being situated inland,
at a distance from the sea, and fenced off with abrupt mountains on all sides, as I have
described, rendered it difficult for the contrivers of the Temple to introduce columns from
elsewhere. But, as the Emperor was distressed at the difficulty of the task, Gfod shewed
a kind of stone in the nearest mountains well adapted for the purpose, whether it existed
and was concealed previously or was now created. In either case, there is credibility in
the account to those who refer the cause to God. For though we, measuring everything
by human power, believe many things have been excluded as impossible ; yet nothing
could be either difficult or impossible to the God of all.

Hence, then, extraordinary columns of great size, and resembling in their colour
the brightness of flame, support the Temple on all sides, some from beneath, some from
above ; and others about the porches which surround the whole Temple, except on the
eastern side. Two of these stand before the gate of the Temple, of exceeding splendour
and inferior perhaps to no column in the world. From thence proceeds another porch,
called Narthex, as I imagine from its want of width. After this is an atrium raised upon
like columns in a square. The intermediate doors are of such grandeur as to give those who
enter in an idea what a great spectacle they are about to encounter. The propylmum from
hence is of wonderful beauty, and has an arch raised upon two columns to an immense
height ; while, as you go forward, two semicircular buildings stand facing each other on
each side of the way to the Temple. There are two hospices on either side the other way,
the work of the Emperor Justinian. The one is a lodging-house for visitors from a distance,
the other a resting place for the sick poor.

This Temple of the Virgin was endowed also by the Emperor Justinian with a
revenue of large amount. The works then of the Emperor Justinian in Jerusalem were
of this kind.

Appendix IV.

ITINElARIUM BURDIGrALA HIERUSALEM USQUE.

273

APPENDIX IV.

ITINERARIUM BURDIGALA HIERUSALEM USQUE.1 2

1 V. Hierusalem, piscinae, Bethsaida, crypta Salomonis, turris excelsa, lapis reprobatus, palatium
Salomonis, exceptoria aquas, locus templi, statuas Hadriani, lapis pertusus, domus Ezecliiee.

Sunt in Hierusalem piscinae magnae duae ad latus templi, id est, una ad dexteram, alia
ad sinistram, quas Salomon fecit ; interius vero in civitate sunt piscinae gemellares, quinque
porticus habentes, quae appellantur Bethsaida. Ibi aegri multorum annorum sanabantur ;
aquam autem babent piscinae in modum cocci turbatam. Est et ibi crypta, ubi Salomon
daemones torquebat. Et ibi est angulus turris excelsissimae, ubi Dominus ascendit, et dixit
ei, qui tentabat eum : Si Alius Dei es, mitte te deorsum. Et ait ei Dominus : Non tentabis
Dominum Deum tuum, sed illi soli servies. Ibi est lapis angularis magnus, de quo dictum
est : Lapidem, quern reprobaverunt aedificantes, bic factus est ad caput anguli. Et sub
pinna turris ipsius sunt cubicula plurima, ubi Salomon palatium babebat. Ibi etiam constat
cubiculum, in quo sedit et Sapientiam descripsit ; ipsum vero cubiculum uno lapide est
tectum. Sunt ibi et exceptuaria magna aquae subterranea et piscinae magno opere aedificatae.
Et in aede ipsa, ubi templum fuit, quod Salomon aedificavit, in marmore ante aram sanguinem
Zacbariae dicunt bodie fusum ; etiam parent vestigia clavorum militum, qui eum occiderunt,
per totam aream, ut putes in cera fixum esse. Sunt ibi et statuae duae Hadriani, et est non
longe de statuis lapis pertusus, ad quern veniunt Judaei singulis annis, et unguent eum,
et lamentant se cum gemitu, et vestimenta sua scindunt, et sic recedunt. Est ibi et domus
Ezechiae, regis Judae.

V. Piscina Siloe.

Item exeunti Hierusalem, ut ascendas Sion, in parte sinistra et deorsum in valle,
juxta murum, est piscina, quae dicitur Siloa et babet quadriporticum, et alia piscina grandis
foras. Hie fons sex diebus atque noctibus currit, septimo vero die, qui est sabbatum,
in totum nec nocte, nec die currit.

VI. Sion, locus domus Caipjhse, palatium David, synagoga.

Inde eadem via ascenditur Sion, et paret, ubi fuit domus Caipbae sacerdotis, et columna
adbuc ibi est, in qua Christum flagellis ceciderunt. Intus autem, intra murum Sion, paret
locus, ubi palatium habuit David. Ex septem synagogis, quae illic fuerant, una tantum
remansit ; reliquae autem arantur et seminantur, sicut Isaias propbeta dixit.

1 From Palaestinae Descriptiones ex Sseculo iv, v et vi, by Titus Tobler, St. Gallen, 1869.

2 N

274

APPENDICES.

Appendix IV.

VII. Porta Neapolitana, parietes prsetorii veteris, Golgotha, sepulcrum Domini,

basilica Constantini.

Inde ut eas foras murum de Sion, ennti ad portam Neapolitanam ad partem dexteram,
deorsum in valle sunt parietes, nbi dornus fuit sive praetorium Pontii Pilati : ubi Dominus
auditus est, antequam pateretur. A sinistra autem parte est monticulus Golgotha, ubi
Dominus crucifixus est. Inde quasi ad lapidis missum est crypta, ubi corpus ejus positum
fuit, et tertio die surrexit. Ibidem modo jussu Constantini imperatoris basilica facta est,
id est, dominicum mirse pulcbritudinis, babens ad latus exceptoria, unde aqua levatur, et
balneum a tergo, ubi infantes lavantur.

VIII. Vallis Josaphat, petra traditionis, palma Ghristi, monumenta Isaise et Ezechiee.

Item ab Hierusalem eunti ad portam, quae est contra orientem, ut ascendatur in montem
Oliveti, vallis, quae dicitur Josaphat. Ad partem sinistram, ubi sunt vineae, est et petra, ubi
Judas Iscarioth Christum tradidit ; ad partem vero dexteram est arbor palmae, de qua
infantes ramos tulerunt et, veniente Christo, substraverunt. Inde non longe, quasi ad
lapidis missum, sunt monumenta duo, monubiles mirae pulcbritudinis, facta : in unum positus
est Isaias propheta, qui est vere monolithus, et in alium Ezechias, rex Judaeorum.

IX. Mons Oliveti, locus discipulorum Dominum audientium, basilica Constantini,

locus visionis, Bethania.

Inde ascendis in montem Oliveti, ubi Dominus ante passionem discipulos docuit. Ibi
facta est jussu Constantini basilica mirae pulcbritudinis. Inde non longe est monticulus,
ubi Dominus ascendit orare, et apparuit illic Moyses et Elias, quando Petrum et Joannem
secum duxit. Inde ad orientem passus mille quingentos est villa, quae appellatur Bethania.
Ibi est crypta, ubi Lazarus positus fuit, quern suscitavit Dominus.

INNOMINATUS I.1

Incipit Descriptio Sanctorum Locorum.

I. Si quis ab occidentalibus partibus Jerusalem adire voluerit, solis ortum semper teneat
et Hierosolymitani loci oratoria ita inveniet, sicut hie notata sunt.

II. In Jerusalem est cubiculum uno lapide coopertum, ubi Salomon sapientiae librum
scripsit, et ibi inter templum et altare in marmore ante aram sanguis Zacharise fusus est.
Inde non longe est lapis, ad quern per singulos annos Judsei veniunt et unguentes eum

1 Theodorici Libellus de Locis sanctis. Cui accedunt breviores aliquot descriptiones Terraj Sanctie. Titus
Tobler. St. Gallen, 1865. P. 118.

Appendix IV.

NOTE ON ‘ ITINERAKIUM ’ AND ‘ INNOMINATUS.’

275

lamentantur et sic cum gemitu receclunt. Ibi est domus Ezechiae, regis Juda, cui ter quinos
annos ad vitam Dominus dedit. Deinde est domus Caiphae, et columna, ad quam Christus
ligatus, flagellatus, caesus fuit. Ad portam neapolitanam est prsetorium Pilati, ubi Christus
a principibus sacerdotum judicatus fuit. Inde non procul est Golgotha vel Calvariae locus,
ubi Christus, filius Dei, crucifixus fuit, et primus Adam sepultus ibi fuit, et Abraham ibi
Deo sacrificavit.

NOTE.

With the assistance of the maps and plans attached to this work, there is now no
difficulty in following the steps of the Bordeaux Pilgrim in his peregrinations through
Jerusalem. His description is partly historical, partly topographical. He begins with a
description of the Palace and Temple of Solomon, and all the various objects he mentions are
easily distinguishable on Plate I. ; and, in so far as any such authority is to be depended
upon, are a valuable confirmation of the statements made in the text. He then ascends Zion,
apparently by the stairs of the city of David, or rather by the bridge or causeway which
Herod had erected to supply their place. He leaves the fountain of Siloam on his left hand,
and, by inference, though it is not expressly so stated, the house of Caiaphas on his right, and
thus may refer to the column in the Masonic Hail (woodcut No. 46), though this is hardly
sufficient to prove that it was so. After this, it is added that within the wall of Zion are
seven synagogues, thus indicating that, as early as a.d. 333, this name had been transferred
from the eastern to the western hill. Having thus disposed of both ancient and modern
Jewish antiquities, the Pilgrim returns to the eastern hill to describe the Christian buildings
then in course of erection by order of Constantine.

Those who adopt the view that the present church in the town is the one in progress
of erection when the Pilgrim was in Jerusalem, as a necessary consequence, assume that
the Damascus Gate was the Porta Neapolitana, and justify this by saying that, as Nablous or
Neapolis was on the north of Jerusalem, this gate was, of necessity, so called. If nothing
depended upon it, this is a very innocent guess, which might be allowed to stand ; but when
it is used to prove that a set of buildings are what they certainly are not, some further
proof is indispensable ; but none is forthcoming. During the fifteen centuries that have
elapsed since the Pilgrim’s time, no single instance has been adduced of that name being
applied to that gate. Sancta Paula and numerous other pilgrims entered by it, but do not call
it by that name. We have several descriptions of the gates of Jerusalem, but the name
does not appear again. According to my view, it was an internal gate, and would not be
enumerated among the city gates of Jerusalem, and was so called because, according to
Eusebius, it led from that old and accursed city, to the new Jerusalem, which had been
erected opposite to it.

The sequel of the narrative makes it almost certain that this was so. The Pilgrim was
not going towards the northern gate of the city, but towards the eastern, in order to ascend to
Olivet. It is not possible now to say exactly where the eastern gate was situated, as the whole
of the wall between what was the Palace of Solomon and the Golden Gateway has been
entirely rebuilt, probably in the time of the Crusades. It could not, however, be very far

276

APPENDICES.

Appendix IY.

from where it is marked on the plan (Plate VII.), as he mentions on his right hand the
palm-trees from which the children cut branches and strewed them before Christ, and not far
from thence the well-known tombs of Absalom and Zacharias, though then known by different
names. It probably was the Porta Tecuitis of Arculfus, which is mentioned immediately
after the Portula, whose position is well ascertained as immediately to the south of the
Golden Gateway.

The passage from the Innominatus I., quoted at the end of the Bordeaux Pilgrim’s
account, confirms this view to the fullest possible extent. Both authors point most distinctly
to the Turris Antonia as the Preetorium of Pilate, and the latter distinctly asserts that the
Porta Neapolitana was attached to {ad) the Preetorium. No one, I fancy, will contend that
the Preetorium was at the Damascus Gate, or anywhere near it ; yet if it was not, the usual
theory is wholly untenable. It probably was the gate which, in the time of the Crusades,
became the Porta Speciosa, described by John of Wurzburg as that in which Peter and John
cured the lame man.

Appendix V.

LE TEMPLE DE JERUSALEM.

277

APPENDIX V

LE TEMPLE DE JERUSALEM: MON OGRAPHIE DU HARAM ECU CHERIF.

By Count Melchior de Vogue.

Having in tlie preceding pages stated my views with regard to the plans and disposition
of the various buildings in the Haram area, it may he interesting to explain briefly the con-
clusions arrived at, on this same subject, by so competent an authority as the Count de Vogue,
especially as these are in every important particular diametrically opposed to mine, and
if they cannot be shown to be erroneous, those announced in this work have no claim
to the consideration of those interested in the subject. An examination of his views, however
slight, will at all events enable others to judge more correctly of what is stated in the text,
by having the pleadings on both sides placed before them, while the woodcut on the next
page, which is reduced by photography from one of his plates, will enable readers to see
at a glance where and to what extent we differ from- one another.

While stating my reasons for differing from him, I am quite prepared to admit that
there is probably no man living who is so well entitled to be listened to on this subject
as the Count de Vogue. By his position, he is a gentleman, above all suspicion of stating
anything with intentional unfairness. By education, he is a scholar, especially learned
in the languages bearing on this subject ; and besides these qualifications, he has devoted
a considerable time to the stmty of the antiquities of Syria on the spot, so as probably
to know more about them personally than any one else. In 1854 he first visited the Holy
Land, and studied with infinite care the church at Bethlehem, and that known as the
Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, besides most of the churches then accessible in their
neighbourhood. On his return home, he published, in 1860, a work entitled £ Les Eglises
de la Terre Sainte,’ which, for minuteness of detail and beauty of illustration, leaves little
to be desired. It certainly is the most valuable contribution to our knowledge of the
subject of which it treats that has yet been published. Again, in the latter end of 1861,
he revisited the East. After spending six months in exploring the Hauran, and the north
of Syria, he settled, in June 1862, in Jerusalem, with the intention of thoroughly investi-
gating the Haram and studying its history. In these explorations he was accompanied
by his friend, M. Waddington, now Minister for Foreign Affairs in France, a scholar of
considerable eminence ; and M. Duthoit, an artist perfectly capable of drawing anything he
saw with elegance and accuracy. The results of these journeys were first given to the world
in a work entitled ‘ Syrie Centrale,’ commenced more than ten years ago, the text of
which, however, was only given to the world while the present work was passing through the
press. At an earlier date (1864), M. de Vogue published the results of his investigations in the
Haram in a work entitled ‘ Le Temple de Jerusalem : Monographie du Haram ecli Cherif,’ which
is the work that especially interests us at present. In scope and intention it is almost identical

50 !03

1 1 — i -i 1 — i — i — i — i 1 1—

300 METRES

Temple of Herod as Restored by the Count de Vogue. (Photographed from his plate xv.)

Appendix Y.

LE TEMPLE DE JERUSALEM.

279

with, the present volume, and differs from it only in the conclusions it arrives at, and in the
beauty and magnificence of its illustrations. In these it far surpasses anything I have
attempted. Indeed, I doubt much if artists could be found in this country capable of
executing anything combining so much accuracy with such artistic elegance.

It would of course be both tedious and unprofitable to attempt to examine all the
points raised in this discussion. I propose, therefore, to select three, and to treat of these
only, in this Appendix ; but I think it will be admitted that these three are the most
important, and typical of all, and their determination involves that of all the others.
They are : —

First. The position and dimensions of Herod’s Temple.

Second. The age and origin of the Holden Hateway, involving, of course, that of the
Dome of the Kock.

Third. The question whether the Aksa is or is not Justinian’s church, or built on its site.

The first of these is a Jewish, the second a Christian, the third a Saracenic question,
and the three together involve, practically, the history of all the buildings treated of in the
preceding pages.

The principal difficulty in this case is to state the Count de Vogue’s argument with
fairness, for its logic appears to me so strange that I confess I have considerable difficulty
at times in following it, and may consequently unintentionally misrepresent his meaning.
This cannot, however, be done to any great extent, as his work is generally accessible,
and the woodcut No. 75, being a photograph from his own plate, will be sufficient to check
any extensive misconception of his argument.

In the first place, the Count fully admits (page 19) the distinctness of Josephus’
statement, that the Temple was a square, the perimeter of which was 4 stadia, each side
measuring 1 stadium,1 but this he assigns to Solomon’s, not to Herod’s, Temple. To me
it is inconceivable that any one reading the whole work can understand Josephus, as
describing Solomon’s Temple, in his 15th book, after he had finished with him and his
works in his 8th. I quite admit the clumsiness of his introducing Solomon’s name, in
the middle of the chapter, and not inserting Herod’s name, when he resumed the description
of his works, but this is unfortunately only too characteristic of this author.

Though I cannot see it in any other light, the Count does, and we must therefore
let it stand for the present, and see what it leads to. The principal assertion is that
the Temple was a square, and there is nothing whatever either in Josephus or the
Talmud to lead us to suppose it ever was anything else, whatever its dimensions may
have been, but there are two paragraphs in Josephus which are so clumsily expressed
as to allow a considerable latitude of interpretation. The first is, “ He (Herod) rebuilt
the Temple, and took in a space of ground double of what it occupied before, and surrounded
it with a wall.” 2 The question here is, what did Herod double ? I have already given
my reasons (page 74) for believing that the Temple which existed when Herod rebuilt it
was that described by Hecataeus, and I feel convinced that, if Count de Vogue had gone
as carefully through the earlier Temples as I have done, he would never have assumed
that Solomon’s Temple was 400 cubits square, or that a Temple of these dimensions existed
in Jerusalem in the first century b.c. If this is granted, however, there can be no great

1 Ant. xv. 11, 3.

2 tov vaov eVeo't'evacre xai rrjv nep\ avTov aveTei)(icraTO \wpav rr/s ovarjs bmXacriav. k.t.A. B. J. i. 21, 1.

280

APPENDICES.

Appendix V.

objection to the use the Count makes of the second ambiguous passage, where it is said,
“ That the porticos of the Temple, with the Antonia, measured 6 stadia in circumference ” ; 1
provided it can be made to agree with the other indications.

The argument Count de Vogue founds on these two passages is this. As Solomon’s
Temple was 1 stadium square, Herod added another enclosure of the same form to the
southward of it (see his woodcut, page 22), and made the Temple, in theory, a parallelogram,
400 cubits east and west, by 800 cubits north and south, the length of the Stoa Basilica,
1 stadium, fixing the dimension of its southern side.

The first objection to this theory is, that there is not a single expression either in
Josephus or the Talmud that would lead us to suppose that the Temple of Herod was
anything but a square. The latter is quite distinct on the subject. “ The Mountain of the
House was a square of 500 cubits each way.” If you reject the description in Josephus’
15th book as not applying to Herod’s Temple, because the assertion there is not perfectly
distinct, you have nevertheless the certainty that the Stoa Basilica that occupied the
south side was 1 stadium in length, and. that Solomon’s Porch, on the eastern side,
was 400 cubits ; 2 and, to say the least of it, there is the extremest improbability that the
eastern porch was really 800 cubits long, and that only half of it was ascribed to Solomon.

In addition to this, there is the prophecy mentioned in the 6th book of the ‘ Wars of
the Jews,’3 that “their city should be taken as well as their holy house, when once their
Temple should become four square,” which Josephus explains it became by the destruction
of the Antonia. The destruction of that fortress as drawn by De Vogue (woodcut No. 75)
would be far from having that effect, and consequently the prophecy would have no
meaning ; though it is just one of those incidental pieces of evidence that are most valuable
in such circumstances.

Another objection is its extreme improbability. According to the Kabbis, as practically
adopted by De Vogue, the Temple, properly so called, viz. without the Court of the Grentiles,
was 342 cubits east and west, and only 215 cubits north and south. If, consequently, an
extension were wanted, it would most probably be in its major axis, and not at right angles,
as shown in De Vogue’s plan (woodcut No. 75), which is awkward in the extreme.

In order to accommodate the statement of the Babbis, that there was most space
on the south, next on the east, third on the north, and least space in the west, the Count
has felt constrained to place the Temple in the northern position of his parallelogram,
making Herod’s extension consequently in the south. This statement is in direct con-
tradiction to Josephus, who tells us that, when they wanted to enlarge the Temple, they
took down the northern wall to get as much room as was required. Besides this, as pointed
out above (ante, page 118), this tradition regarding the spaces round the Temple is one of
the vaguest in the Talmud, and one of the least to be depended upon. It is not stated
where they were measured from, nor are the measurements given in any direction ; and
it seems to me quite inadmissible that one of the haziest passages in the Talmud should
be relied upon, while one of the most distinct — that the Temple was square — should be
rejected without any reason given.

Again, why should Herod take in that large area marked as “ Court of the Grentiles ”
on the south of the Temple ? Of what use was it ? Why go to the enormous expense of
building up the south-east and south-west angles of the Haram from 100 to 150 feet above

1 B. J. v. 5, 2.

2 Ant. xx. 9, 7.

3 B. J. vi. 5, 4.

Appendix Y.

LE TEMPLE DE JERUSALEM.

281

these foundations when, by restricting the hypasthral part of the Court of the Gentiles,
which the Count makes 600 feet in width, to 100 feet or less, he might have saved all this
useless expenditure ? There could be no service in the external court, and it is very
unlikely that the Jews would have tolerated, even if Herod had wished it, that so large
a portion or portions of the Temple should be devoted to the Gentiles.

It would be easy to multiply these objections to almost any extent. The whole plan
looks to me so unnatural — if the expression may be used — and so unlike anything any
one would expect from the study of the authorities, that I could give fifty reasons for
rejecting it; but, after all, the most tangible one will be its external dimensions, which,
so far as I can see, cannot be made to agree with any of our authorities. Assuming for
the nonce that De Yogue is right, that the area of the Temple was a parallelogram
2 stadia or 1200 feet north and south, and 600 feet east and west,1 or 3600 feet in
perimeter, including the Antonia, and protracting that on the map, we are still a very long
way from occupying the whole Harare area. Count de Vogue is aware of this, but gets
over the difficulty by the following calculation. Josephus, he says, makes the southern
face of the Temple 1 stadium, which is true ; but the southern face measures 280 metres
(933 feet). He must therefore have been speaking only loosely— making a guess, in fact
— but, following up the same system when he said the perimeter was 6 stadia, including
the Antonia, he meant six times 280 or 1680 metres, equal to 5580 feet as the perimeter
of the Haram area, including the Antonia, as drawn by him, or nearly 2000 feet in excess
of anything our authorities would lead us to expect, on even the widest interpretation.
Without the Antonia, he makes the perimeter of the Temple 1525 metres, or, in round
numbers, 5000 feet, or more than double the 2400, which is really the highest figure that
can be extracted from Josephus, and 2000 feet in excess of even the exaggerated calculation
of the Talmud. I confess, when I first read this, it took my breath away, and it was not
till I had turned the metres into feet, and tried them in the Survey, that I could
convince myself I understood the author rightly. Except Captain Warren’s theory, that
the Jewish cubit was 21 inches, and that Josephus meant cubits when he said feet, I
do not know of any theory that seems so baseless as this. To assume that a stadium
was 933 feet, without attempting to prove it, and then to apply this stadium to a theory
already strained beyond the endurable limits of tension, does appear to me to be throwing
overboard all those principles which ought to guide us in investigations of this sort.

If there existed in the Haram area any remains or local indications which it was
found impossible to reconcile with the litera scripta, it might be necessary, and consequently
justifiable, to strain the meaning of the texts in order to try and get rid of the discrepancies.
As it is, however, according to the Count de Vogue’s own showing, the facts are all against
his interpretation. In plate i. of his ‘Temple de Jerusalem,’ he marks, in solid back
shading, all those parts which were ancient, and could consequently have belonged to
the old Temple. According to this authority, the whole of the southern wall with its
adjuncts is ancient. So is the western wall past the Wailing Place, to the extent of about
500 feet from the south-western angle. So, too, is the eastern wall for about 260 feet from
the south-eastern corner of the Haram. Northward of these parts there is absolutely nothing

1 As the theory of De Vogiid is all contained in one
short chapter of his work, pp. 17-25, it has not been
thought necessary to repeat the reference every time it
is mentioned. In like manner, as all the references to

Josephus and other authors are given in the text of
this work, they have been omitted here unless when
specially wanted.

282

APPENDICES.

Appendix Y.

that is marked as ancient, except the two monolithic door-posts of the Golden Gateway.
These, however, are wholly without carving or moulding of any sort, and may consequently
be of any age. To them we shall return presently, and beyond them there is a tower
adjacent to the Birket Israel. There is, however, absolutely no reason for supposing that
this ever formed part of the Temple. No north-eastern tower is anywhere mentioned as
attached to that building, and this is just such a tower as we would naturally look for in
this situation from Josephus’ description of the wall built here by Agrippa 1 thirteen years
after the Crucifixion.

Close to this tower is the Birket Israel, which the Count assumes to be a ditch meant
to protect the northern face of the Temple. It is not, however, a fortification ditch in any
sense of the term. As Salzmann showed, as long ago as 1856, it is essentially a cistern
meant to receive the drainage of a valley trending from the north-west, and to store its
waters. The walls are carefully and artistically prepared for that purpose, as shown in
the annexed woodcut, and certainly not for defence. Captain Warren has since then found
its outlet 2 so arranged as to prove this beyond doubt, if proof were wanted.

A, Hewn stones 18 to 20 inches thick.

B, Smaller stones dovetailed into the

joints of the inner course.

C, Concrete, formed of pebbles and broken

brick with very bad cement.

D, A coating of impermeable cement.

76. — Section op Masonry lining the Birket Israel. (From Salzmann’s Jerusalem, p. 11.)

Assuming it, however, to be a fortification ditch, as Count de Vogue wishes, its existence
here is absolutely fatal to his theory of the Temple area. Nothing is more clear than that
Titus erected mounds against the northern wall of the Temple before the fall of the Antonia,
and fought the Jews in front of the monument of King Alexander.3 Had a ditch of this
sort existed during the siege, 75 feet deep and 120 feet wide, it is impossible he could
have erected his engines against the northern face of the Temple, or indeed attacked it
in any form, without filling up the ditch, as Pompey had done that on the north of the old
Temple when he besieged it.4 That he did not fill up this one is clear, because it is open
to the present day, and it rendered the Haram area impregnable on that side before the
introduction of fire-arms.

As Count de Vogiie insists (page 21) that the Temple of Herod was identical in size and
form with that of Solomon, this fact, of all the ancient remains being in the southern portion
of the Haram area, and none in the northern, where he places it, is almost as strong an

1 B. J. v. 4, 2.

2 Recovery of Jerusalem, 165.

3 B. J. v. 7, 3.

4 Ant. siv. 4, 2.

Appendix Y.

LE TEMPLE DE JERUSALEM.

283

argument as could well be used against bis view of the site. It is not final, of course,
because it may have happened that all the northern ones may have been removed, in some
mysterious manner, and all the southern ones preserved, we know not why; but it is, to say
the least of it, strange and unlikely that it should be so.1 Curiously enough, the Count makes
no use of the Sakhra in determining the site of the Temple. According to his plan, it was
buried partly under the floor of room No. 9, partly under the entrance between that room and
No. 10, on the south side of the Temple, where I have marked it in woodcut No. 75 by a shaded
patch. If this was so, the whole of the area of the inner Temple must have been raised con-
siderably above contour of 2440 feet ; and it seems very improbable indeed that such a mass
of masonry should have so entirely disappeared ; still more so that it should have vanished
so entirely before the seventh century that Omar and Abd-el-Malek should have mistaken
this buried rock for something they were looking for. What they were searching for,
so far as I can make out, was something very unlike this, so much so that no Mahomedan
historian mentions it and its cave in any terms by which it can now be recognised.

Assuming for the nonce that all these scriptural and local difficulties can he got over,
though many more could be stated if it were worth while,2 let us now try how far Count
de Vogue’s disposition of the parts of the Temple accords with what we know of its uses in the
probable appropriation of its various parts. The following table, though not minutely
correct, as the scale of De Vogue’s plan is not sufficiently large to make it so, is sufficiently
near to explain the relative importance of the various parts.

Dimensions of Herod’s Temple according to De VoguL.

^°Temple and Altar ^ Inc"*u<^10=:|-176 cubits by 135 cubits = 264 feet by 202J feet, or 53,328 square feet.

Court of the Men of Israel

. 11

,, 135 ,, — 164 „

202i „

3,341

Court of the Women .

. 135

„ 135 „ - 202 „

202 „

41,000

Temple including Chel

. 197 metres hy 130 metres = 650 „

430 „

280,000

Court of the Gentiles .

. 470

„ 297 „ =1540 „

980 „

1,509,200

Deduct Antonia ....

. 67

„ 100 „ = 220 „

330 „

72,600

Area of Temple .

1,436,600 square feet.

From this it results

that

the area of the Temple,

properly

so called,

includin

the Temple, Altar, and all that was sacred, covered little more than 50,000 square
feet. In addition to this was a court accessible to the men of Israel, covering some

1 At the time he wrote, the Count was not aware of
Captain Warren’s discoveries, which make it so probable
that the south-east angle of the Haram was the work of
Solomon. As he has — so far as I am aware — expressed
no opinion on the subject since they were made public,
we must wait to know how far he accepts them, and
also to what extent they may modify his views.

2 To mention only one of these. The Count carries the
Stoa Basilica east and west along the whole southern
front of the Haram, which is 933 feet, including two angle
towers. Whether the western of these towers did or
did not exist cannot well be proved. It is not mentioned
anywhere, and its position there is, to say the least of

it, most improhable. The eastern one, we may say,
certainly had no existence, or its foundations up to the
level of the Haram area would have been found.
Between it and the Triple Gateway, there is absolutely
nothing on which the pillars of the Stoa could stand, as
shown on page 75, and no proposition appears to me
more clear than that it never extended there. That one
objection is, to my mind, fatal to the whole theory, as
the facts now stand. If it can be explained away, it
ought to be done at once, for, as it now stands, it proves
that all eastward of the Triple Gateway was a void then
as it is now.

284

APPENDICES.

Appendix Y.

3300 square feet, and one appropriated to the women of Israel, covering 41,000 square feet, or
twelve times more than the space allotted to the men, a piece of gallantry on the part
of the Jews we were hardly prepared for.

I reject at once, as wholly at variance with our usual authorities, the Count de Vogue’s
position of the Soreg. Even assuming that the position in which I have placed it, at the
top of the stairs, was open to doubt, Josephus most distinctly states, that it, enclosing the
inner court, was not far from the porticos of the outer court ( aire-^wv ov 7roA.fi),1 and
evidently concentric with it. As drawn by him, it is sometimes near to, sometimes far from,
the inner, and has as little symmetrical reference to the outer court, and seems utterly devoid
of meaning or symmetry. Taking therefore the whole area of the Temple, exclusive of the
Antonia, in round numbers, as 1,440,000 square feet, and deducting from that the area of the
Temple with its Chel, or 280,000 square feet, we arrive at the rather startling conclusion,
that, after enclosing this immense space at enormous expense, especially on the south side,
the Jews modestly reserved less than one-fifth part to themselves, and ceded the whole of the
rest to the Gentiles.

These things, I confess, fill me with astonishment, and when I see such theories generally
accepted without question, I feel that there is something in all this that is quite beyond
the reach of my intellectual capacity. It is true, of course, that it so happens that, if the
whole of the Harare area were occupied by the Temple of the Jews, there is an end of all
theories regarding Constantine’s building — the Dome of the Bock — or the Golden Gateway, or
making any mistakes about the Sepulchre of Christ being on the eastern hill. But I
do not believe that the Count de Vogue could be influenced by any idea of this sort in
restoring the Temple. He is far too clever a man, and too good a tactician, not to know that
to attempt to hold an extended position with a garrison so weak as not to be sufficient to
defend it effectually is not only to risk the loss of the post, but the capture of the defenders,
and the consequent loss and damage to the cause. He must have convinced himself that
the Temple occupied the whole area, with the same sincerity that I have convinced myself
that it occupied only one quarter of the space he allots to it ; and having each of us
stated our views, it must he left to others to judge between us. By a comparison of my
Plate II. with the woodcut No. 75 at the beginning of this Appendix, the comparison ought
not be to difficult.

1 Ant. xv. 11, 3.

Appendix V.

THE GOLDEN GATEWAY.

285

77. — West Front of Golden Gateway. (From a photograph.)

The Golden Gateivarj.

As mentioned in the text of this work (page 195), no English author that I am acquainted
with has attempted to answer the question — Who built the Golden Gateway ? All have
been content to pass it by in silence ; yet it is no mean building. Its- dimensions are
considerable, 80 by 55 feet over all, or those of a small parish church, and its ornamentation,
especially internally, is rich and elaborate to an unusual degree. This is fully admitted
by the Count de Vogue, who devotes six beautiful plates to its illustration, while he only
devotes three to the architecture of the Dome of the Eock, exclusive of its mosaic and
coloured decorations. Such a building as this could not be smuggled into existence without
its being known who built it, and being a gateway, and a gateway only, it must be part
of some group of buildings, and led to some building which may not now exist.

Whether mistaken or not, the Count de Vogue is too much of a gentleman ever to
adopt the tactics of silence in order to escape from a difficulty. He consequently faces
this one boldly. “ J’ignore,” he says, “ ce qui fut construit au rve siecle, mais au ve ou au
vie on batit un monument qui subsiste encore, et qui, sauf quelques restaurations partielles,
est parvenu intact jusqua nous ” (page 64). In the same paragraph he goes on to explain
that it was built by the Christians, who believed it to be on the site of the Beautiful Gate
of the Temple, and they erected it in this faith, in honour of the miracle performed by
St. Peter and St. John in curing the lame man, as narrated in the 3rd chapter of the Acts
of the Apostles.

Here, therefore, we have two distinct questions raised : first, as to the age of the
monument, and, secondly, as to the probability of the Christians, between the age of
Constantine and that of Justinian, re-erecting a part of the Jewish Temple to commemorate a
miracle performed within its precincts.

In the first place, we may safely put on one side the idea that the Golden Gateway was
built by Justinian; if for no other reason, because it is not mentioned by Procopius, which
it certainly would have been, had his patron erected it, but more so because the style
is so totally unlike anything erected during his reign. We know enough of his style to feel
quite sure of this. The Golden Gateway is built with concave pilaster capitals of a

286

APPENDICES.

Appendix Y.

tolerably pure Corinthian acanthus, quite unlike the convex capitals such as those shown in
woodcuts Nos. 59 and 60, which are so characteristic of Justinian’s reign. But more than
even this, the Golden Gateway retains the three indispensable parts of the classical orders,
the architrave, frieze, and cornice, a combination that had ceased to exist before the sixth
century. On the other hand, we know exactly what the Boman orders were down to the
time of Diocletian, from his buildings at Spalatro and elsewhere. The question, therefore,
is, Does the architecture of the Golden Gateway resemble more that of Diocletian or
of Justinian, and what is the probable interval that may have elapsed before or after the
time of either of these emperors when it was erected ?

In order to establish the exact position of the Golden Gateway in the architectural
sequence, it is hardly necessary to go beyond the plates of the Count de Vogue’s own ‘ Syrie
Centrale.’ They indeed would be quite sufficient for the purpose if it were not that there
seems to have been a pause in the building activity in Syria during the half-century
that elapsed between the time of Aurelian (a.d. 270), and Constantine (say, a.d. 320), and
it is consequently necessary to supplement his series by examples from Mylasa and Spalatro
in order to supply the necessary links in the chain of evidence.

During the three centuries that elapsed from the first introduction of the Boman form
of the Corinthian order at Borne till it ceased to be employed at Palmyra, Baalbec, and
Gerash, down indeed to the building of the Basilica at Bethlehem, the forms of the order
were stereotyped ; and it requires a practised eye to detect the difference between the earlier
and later examples of the style. The Golden Gateway is one of the first instances of
deviation from the established form. All the essentials of the order are still there, but
used somewhat differently, aud with an evident tendency towards emancipation from the
familiar Pagan forms.

If the six plates illustrating the Golden Gateway had been engraved in the ‘ Syrie
Centrale,’ instead of in ‘ Le Temple de Jerusalem,’ they would have been inserted after
plate 29, representing the arch at Latakiah, and numbered as 29 a, b, c, &c., as the
last of the classical examples, though, as just mentioned, there is a slight hiatus here in
the series. With plate 30 we enter on a totally different state of affairs. The buildings
at Serdjilla, Moudjileia, and El Barah (plates 31-76) belong to the Byzantine order,
without a single specimen that can be called classical. They are in fact hardly so
classical as the Bomanesque style of the South of France and North of Italy in the
tenth and eleventh centuries, which certainly cannot be called Boman. If, for instance,
wre take the capital at El Barah (plate 62), which is the one in the wdiole series
most like those of the Golden Gateway, it hardly requires an educated eye to see that a
century at least must have elapsed after the erection of the Golden Gateway before the
true Corinthian order could have become so denaturalised. Yet this is dated fourth or
fifth century by De Vogue.

I would, however, be content to rest the whole argument on the details of the Great
Pyramid at El Barah (plates 75 and 76), which is likewise dated as erected in the
fifth century. There is absolutely nothing classical about it. There is no entablature
with its three members, no modillion cornice ; nothing, in fact, to remind us of the Boman
order we are so familiar with. On the other hand, there are the full convex Byzantine
cornices, the rude contorted scrolls, and all those features of the new order which culminated
in the erection of Sancta Sophia at Constantinople. The question remains, Is the Golden
Gateway nearer in style to the buildings of Diocletian at Spalatro, or those at El Barah,

Appendix Y.

THE GOLDEN GATEWAY.

287

or the others comprehended in the Count de Vogue’s plates 30-76? So far as I
am capable of judging, it is a very short step from the styles of Spalatro to that of
Jerusalem ; hut a very long stride, which it is extremely difficult to measure, between
Jerusalem and El Barah.1 Till, indeed, I became acquainted with De Vogue’s work, I had
no idea the transition was so rapid. In Europe it took five or six centuries to transform
the Roman style into the Romanesque. In Syria it was converted into the Byzantine
in a century, or a century and a half. I hardly know of any transition so rapid in the
whole history of architecture. But granting that it was so, it seems to me ignoring all
the principles of architectural criticism to assert that less than a century or a century and
a half elapsed between the Byzantine buildings at El Barah and the quasi-Roman ones
at Jerusalem ; and if the former were erected in the fifth century, as Count de Vogue
states — and I see no reason for doubting — it seems impossible that the Golden Gateway can
be later than the first half of the fourth century.

The second part of Count de Vogue’s theory of the Golden Gateway seems even more
untenable than the first. His contention, that it was erected, as the Beautiful Gate of the
Temple — the Porta Speciosa or the Nicanor of the Talmud — -to commemorate the miracle
therein performed by the apostles Peter and John, seems quite opposed to all we know of the
history of the building or of the surrounding localities.

In the first place, we have between Eusebius and Procopius a great number of writers —
Chrysostom, Socrates, Sozomen, Jerome, and others — all who knew Jerusalem, or knew
at least what was passing there, and in none of their -works is there any hint of anything
of the sort. The city was Christian, and ruled by Christian bishops, for the whole period
from Constantine to Justinian, and neither before nor afterwards is there any hint that
any one ever erected or intended to erect any part of the old Temple for this or for
any other purpose. We have, indeed, ample evidence that, down at least to the time of the
Arab conquest, in the seventh century, the site of the Jewish Temple was held accursed in
consequence of the denunciation of our Lord (see ante, page 187) ; and it is almost impossible
that any attempt to re-erect any part of it could be entertained by any Christian bishop or
potentate of any sort. We know, too, how generally in that age Julian’s attempt to rebuild
it, in the fourth century was considered an impiety so great as to require the direct
interposition of the Divine Providence to stop it. With the remembrance of the miracle
still fresh, it does, indeed, seem strange that the rebuilding of a portion of it should be
successfully carried out by Christians, and passed over sub jsilentio by all contemporary
writers, nor even alluded to by any one until the time of the Crusades.

It is quite true that John of Wurzburg, writing in 1170 a.d., points out what was then
believed to be the Porta Speciosa of the Temple, and for the first time, I believe, attaches
to it the tradition of its being the identical spot where the miracle was performed.2
Unfortunately, however, for Count de Vogue’s theory, this gateway was situated on the
west side of the Haram area, while the Golden Gateway is on the east; and had the latter

1 In the text to his work, Le Temple de Jerusalem,
p. 68, the Count introduces as a woodcut a pulvinated
lintel from El Barah, as proving the similarity of style
between the buildings there and the Golden Gateway.
To me, it produces exactly the opposite effect. To my
eye, they seem at least a century apart.

2 “Ab occidente ” (from the Templum Domni) “ etiam

habet .ostium versus sepulchrum Domini, uhi est Porta
Speciosa per quam Petrus, cum Johanne transiens,
respondens pauperi eleemosynam ab eis petenti, cum
esset claudus dixit, Argentum et aurum non est
mihi,” &c. Tobler’s edition, p. 125. De Vogiid, Les
Eglises de la Terre Sainte, p. 286.

288

APPENDICES.

Appendix Y.

been expressly erected to commemorate this miracle, it seems incredible that the tradition
should not have clung to it. It required more than the usual blundering of that uncritical
age to forget entirely the purpose of the erection of the Golden Gateway, and to transfer it
to one which never belonged to the Temple at all, but probably was the Porta Neapolitana of
the Bordeaux Pilgrim,1 or of Tobler’s Innominatus I.2

The topographical and mechanical difficulties in the way of accepting the Count de
Vogue’s theory of the Golden Gateway are even greater than those derived from either its
architectural ordinances or its history. As before mentioned, the only evidence the Count
adduces for its antiquity is the existence of two monolithic door-posts in the north-east and
south-east angles of the interior (page 12). These, however, are totally devoid of any
ornament or architectural moulding from which their age might be inferred. They are, in
fact, as wanting in intrinsic evidence of age as the stones of Stonehenge, or any Bude-Stone
monument. The grooves upon them are not rustications, but merely mechanical sinking for
some mechanical purpose. What that may have been, is not quite clear. It may have
been that they were put there to catch the bars in the doors, so as to allow them to
open wider, or to receive the attachments of some bronze or other metal fixing connected
with the hinges, or for any other purpose. All I contend for is that they are not
architectural, but mechanical, and, consequently, cannot be used as an index of age. They
are an undoubted part of the present structure, whatever its age may be ; but certainly there
is no evidence that they belonged to any earlier one existing on the spot.

Whether this was so or not, the Count de Vogue was perfectly justified in assuming,
what indeed was inevitable, that any gateway existing on this spot which was a part of the
Temple must have been subterranean, a tunnel, in fact, like the Huldah and the Prophet’s
Gateways, the sills of which are nearly on the same level. This being so, the flight of
steps in front of it must have exceeded the extraordinary height of 50 feet, as the
level of the floor of the Temple, according to De Vogue, was above contour 2440, as
just pointed out, while that of the floor of the Golden Gateway is 2389, or 51 feet less.
This immense mass of earth and masonry was afterwards removed, “ deblaye a cet effet ”
(page 12), apparently in the fourth or fifth century, to make room for this gateway,
which is admitted to stand, and to have stood, always free, and with architectural
features on all its four sides. It may be so ; but it seems to me strangely improbable,
the more so as the hypothesis involves the belief that the whole of the vast substructions
of the Temple, 50 feet above the level of one of its gateways, had been so entirely
removed that the plan and features of the Temple were no longer recognisable, a fact which
the evidence he himself adduces (page 64) is in itself sufficient to refute, without even
referring to the further evidence I have adduced on this subject in the body of the work.

In order that this theory can be admitted, it is indispensable that the destruction of the
Temple must have been complete, and the obliteration entire, in the fifth century ; otherwise
it is impossible to conceive any person, at that time, mistaking a gateway on this site as the
“Porta Speciosa ” of the Temple. According to his own showing (woodcut No. 75), the
Count, in the nineteenth century, was able to ascertain the true position of this gate,
430 feet to the westward of the Golden Gate and of the Gate Shushan, or, at all events,
of the gate of the Court of the Women, still 200 feet from it. At the very best, a gate on
the site of the Golden Gateway must have been an external gateway of the Court of the
Gentiles, placed unsymmetrically with the Temple in a position where it was impossible it

1 Tobler’s edition, p. 5.

Tobler’s edition, p. 114. See Appendix IV.

Appendix V.

THE MOSQUE EL AKSA OR JUSTINIAN’S CHURCH.

289

should, in the fifth century, be mistaken for the Beautiful Gate of the Temple, had one
vestige of that vast building been visible above ground.

All this may he as the Count de Vogue states it; and as no one questions his facts, or
disputes the conclusions he draws from them, I presume there must he something in it all
that I fail to perceive. If it is so, however, I am hopelessly and helplessly in error. I see
the facts with different eyes, and draw conclusions by a different process of reasoning, and
the reader must be left to choose between us, for I fear any reconciliation of our ideas
is impossible, or nearly so.

7S. — Capital op Dome op the Rock.
(From a drawing by De Vogiie'.)

79. — Capital op Pillar in the Aksa.
(From a drawing by Arundale.)

The Mosque El Aksa or Justinian’s Church.

It now only remains to say a few words regarding the third proposition of Count
de Vogiie, which I undertook to examine in this Appendix, viz. whether the Aksa is
practically identical with Justinian’s Church or erected at least on the same site.

The Count does not appear to feel the cogency of the objection I have so often urged
against this identification, that the Aksa is avowedly situated within the precincts of the
Jewish Temple, and it appears to me impossible that a Christian emperor, in less than two
centuries from Julian’s unsuccessful attempt to rebuild that Temple, should erect a church in
honour of the Virgin Mary in the same locality, unmindful of the denunciations and prophecy
of Christ, so often referred to in the body of this work. Had he felt the importance of
this objection as I do, it is impossible he should have passed it over sub silentio, and
without any attempt to explain why Justinian should choose this site in preference to
any other, with all Jerusalem open to him. To me it is fatal to the Count’s theory, and
final ; hut as neither he nor others see it in the same light, it must, for the purpose of
discussion, be assumed that I am over-estimating its importance, and we must argue
the case on the basis of the information afforded by Procopius regarding this celebrated
building.

What Procopius tells us (Appendix III.) is that the site chosen by the Emperor was on

2 p

200

APPENDICES.

Appendix Y.

tlie south and east, rugged and uneven beyond any other site in Jerusalem ; and the burthen of
his description is a narrative of the trouble and expense he was at to bring it up to the level
of the rest of the “ Temenos,” so as to provide a foundation for the church and other
buildings he proposed to erect. If I object to this, that the position in which the Aksa
stands is, and always was, a solid mass, since Herod’s time at least, it will be objected that
that is my view of the position and dimensions of the Temple, and not necessarily correct.
Count de Vogue cannot, however, avail himself of this objection, inasmuch as he carries
the Stoa Basilica across the whole southern front of the Haram area, from valley to valley,
and any foundations that were strong enough to support that splendid porch could easily
have carried any structure Justinian might have wished to erect.1

Assuming, however, that for some good reason, at present unexplained, Justinian
determined to build his church within the precincts of the Jewish Temple, why should he
have chosen this particular spot? It was the only one that retained any manifest evidences
of Herod’s or of Julian’s handiwork, and consequently the most hateful to Christians. It was
inconvenient, because it forced him to trace the axis of his church north and south, instead of
east and west, “ ut mos usitatior fuit.” It allowed no space for the all-important hemicycle
and its indispensable chalcidicas. Why, in fact, should he have chosen this most inconvenient
site, while he had the whole area, 1500 by 1000 feet, at his disposal?

According to the Count’s theory of the Golden Gateway, as just pointed out, the Temple
was so completely destroyed and obliterated that the position of its gates and courts
could not be ascertained in the fifth and sixth centuries ; but even supposing this not to have
been quite the case, there still remained an area nearly 1000 by 800 feet to the southward
of the Temple properly so called, within its Chel, where De Vogue places it, which was
unencumbered with buildings of any sort, and on any part of which he was at liberty
to erect his church and other buildings. As nearly the whole of this portion is practically
level, and the rock comes up to the surface, or near to it, over a greater part of it, it is
inconceivable that Justinian should have taken all the pains and incurred all the expense
Procopius describes, when he could have obtained all he wanted, and a great deal more,
without the outlay of a single drachma.

If I apprehend the Count de Vogue’s line of argument correctly, one of the principal
reasons he adduces (page 71) for identifying the Aksa with Justinian’s church is that he
believes the four domes of the vestibule of the Double Gateway with their pendentives to be
of Justinian’s age. He admits that the monolith in the centre, with its capital, may belong
to Herod’s time, and also that one of the pendentives belongs to the same age, though he
describes it as “fragment romain encastre dans un des pendentifs” (woodcut No. 7, page 9).
He also admits that the external masonry of the discharging arch may also be old.
Except these fragments, however, according to his view, the triangular placage outside
(woodcut No. 46) and the vaults internally belong to Justinian.2 He further assumes that,

1 I do not know whether it is from inadvertence or
intention that the Count de Vogue speaks of the
“ magnifiques terrasses de Tangle sud-ouest ” (page 70)
as particularly suited or the purposes of this erection.
Procopius says south and east.

~ At page 10 he quotes the inverted inscription
dedicated to “Aelio Hadriano ” as a proof of his views.
To me, it appears that, if it had been utilised by either

Julian or Justinian, or any one who understood Latin,
they would certainly have put it so that it could be
read. No one but an ignorant Saracen could have
turned it upside down. To me it seems clear that it,
with the upper part of the wall, was built by Abd-el-
Malek, as part of the foundation of the Aksa, or it may
be subsequently.

Appendix V.

THE MOSQUE EL AIvSA OR JUSTINIAN’S CHURCH.

291

as the roof of the Golden Gateway is somewhat similar — small domes resting on pendentives
— it, too, must he of the same age. There is in all this, as it appears to me, a jumble of
ideas regarding styles that takes one’s breath away. The works of Herod, of Constantine,
of Julian and Justinian, all reduced to one common denomination, and all relegated to the
fifth and sixth centuries ! It is evident that the Count and I have no common ground
from which to take a departure, or on which to base any conclusions. Merely to repeat what
is said in the text would convey no conviction to his mind, nor to that of any one not
intimately familiar with the whole subject, and to go over it again, and adduce fresh examples,
wrould not only be very tedious and very expensive, but useless. Those who are not
convinced by the arguments already brought forward will not be moved by any amount of
reasoning of this class ; and, after all, the argument of site is far simpler and more easily
intelligible. When it is got over, it will be time enough to refer again to the architecture.
Although, therefore, the direct proof of the erroneousness of this theory would be too
tedious and laborious to be attempted here, the negative proof is easy, and easily stated.
There is not one word in Procopius or in any other author that can be so construed as to
mean that Justinian ever undertook to erect such domes as those of the Huldah Gateway,
nor can any reason be assigned why he should do so, or to what use he would apply such a
subterranean apartment if he possessed it. There is no Christian church, I am aware of,
in Justinian’s or any other age, possessing such an underground entrance. There is nothing
like it to be found in any of the churches in Syria, explored so exhaustively by the Count
himself. No ornamentation of the same class interspersed with the vine is to be found in
the Count’s works, nor in any other I am acquainted with, except those quoted in the text, or
similar buildings, and none of these are Christian, or found connected with any church.
No traces of the vine or of the queer conventional patterns of the Huldah Gateway are found
in the Golden Gateway. Their style, indeed, is as different as that of any two buildings
used for the same purpose can well be. I can understand, however, that Constantine’s
architects, when asked to design a quasi- secular building for the Haram enclosure, may have
taken a few constructive hints from the very beautiful example of the same class that already
existed there, and that this may have given rise to more similarity of form than would be
found in examples situated farther apart. I am also free to admit that Julian’s attempt to
rebuild the Temple may have introduced features into the Huldah Gateway which belong to
the fourth century, consequently to the same age as the Golden Gateway ; but, with all this,
I see no reason for doubting that the chronology of styles introduced into the body of this
work is the only true one, and the only one that lends us a thread to guide us through the
labyrinth of styles found in the various buildings still existing in the Haram area.

There is still another point of view from which the matter may be regarded before
leaving it. There is no point on which all the historians of the period, both Mahomedan and
Christian, are so thoroughly agreed as that when the patriarch Sophronius granted the site
of Solomon’s Temple to Omar, that he might build a mosque upon it {ante, page 187), that it
had been up to that time considered accursed by the Christians. They had heaped dung on
the Sakhra, whatever or wherever that was, and had left the place desolate in fulfilment of
the prophecy. Is it probable — is it possible, indeed — that under these circumstances it really
was occupied by the church of Justinian, and the establishments described by Procopius as
appertaining thereto?

A stronger point than even this is, however, established by the terms of the treaty by
which the site of Solomon’s Temple was ceded to Omar. By it, it was expressly stipulated
that it was granted for the purpose of erecting one place of prayer, and which was to be the

292

APPENDICES.

Appendix V.

only one, for liis co-religionists in Jerusalem. This took place in 638 a.d. ; yet we are now
asked to believe that, within fifty years from that time, when many inhabitants of Jerusalem
who were present at the capitulation might still he living, the Arabs had not only violated
the conditions of the treaty, but seized upon and desecrated one of the four principal
churches of the place, and appropriated it to their own purposes, and all this without
one whisper of complaint on the part of the Christians. If this were so, the Christians of
Jerusalem were a much milder and more pacific race than those of Damascus and elsewhere,
who called out lustily when the Saracens attempted to appropriate their sacred edifices.
In Jerusalem, however, it was not till three centuries after the conclusion of the treaty that
we have a hint of any attempted infraction of it, either by building a second mosque or by
appropriating any building belonging to the Christians.

More than even this, however. The French bishop Arculfus was in Jerusalem between
688 and 695 a.d., while the building of the Aksa was in progress, and describes in
unmistakable terms “ the square house of prayer which the Saracens were erecting on some
ancient ruins ” of the Temple (ante, page 192), but not one word about the church of
Justinian either in the way of description or complaint.

More, again, than even this. We know that, when the monk Bernhard visited Jerusalem
in a.d. 870, the church of Justinian, with its monastery, its xenodochia, and hospital, was
still in all its glory. If it is contended this was not the building intended, because he
ascribes its foundation to Charlemagne, instead of to Justinian, we have the distinct and
positive testimony of the statistical account of the churches of Jerusalem, that in 808 a.d.
the “new church built by Justinian” was still in existence, and had twenty-five priests
and servitors attached to it (ante, page 254).

In addition to these facts, drawn from the history of the building, which seem
conclusive against the identity of the two buildings, there are others derived from the
architecture of the mosque which seem equally so. After quoting the description of the
building by El Hamawi and other Mahomedan historians, the Count adds : — “ Tout me porte
a croire que la mosquee d’Abd-el-Malik avait la forme de toutes les mosquees primitives ;
c’est a dire, la forme d’une cour entouree des portiques, d’une largeur variable. Telles sont
les plus anciennes mosquees du Caire, de la Mecque, de Damas, de Bostra ” (page 77).
All which may be very true, and I am not prepared to dispute it ; but what then becomes
of the basilica-formed church of Justinian, which certainly was not a court ? Besides, this
theory leaves the fact entirely unexplained how the court of Abd-el-Malek took the basilican
form it now possesses; which is the architectural fact, if I understand him rightly, on which
the Count principally relies for the identity of the two.

I do not think any argument pro or con can be drawn from the two capitals of pillars
engraved by the Count de Yogue (plate 32). Both may be frankly admitted to be of the age of
Justinian. That on the left, with the basket capital, most undoubtedly belongs to him; but
when it was introduced into the Aksa is quite another question. Its counterpart is found in
the chapel of the Armenians, in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in the town, and both
were probably taken from some ruined building of Justinian, it may be about the same time,
and, if so, that in the Sepulchre was certainly introduced there after the Crusades.

I have not the dimensions of these two pillars with sufficient correctness to prove it
directly, but I cannot help fancying that they are the identical pillars mentioned by
Procopius as set up in front of the north door of the Mary Church. But whether this is so
or not, they certainly were not removed from Justinian’s church to the places they now
occupy till after its ruin, and that certainly was not till after the visit of the monk Bernhard,

Appendix V.

THE MOSQUE EL AKSA OR JUSTINIAN’S CHURCH.

293

in tlie latter half of the ninth century, and they, at least, cannot have belonged to the
original hypsethral court of the mosque of Abd-el-Malek.

It would he easy to continue these remarks to any required extent, but it is hardly
necessary to do so here. The above are probably sufficient to explain why we differ so
radically regarding the age and uses of the various buildings in the Haram area. On a
former occasion the Count de Vogue dismissed my views with a contemptuous “ Quoique par
l’excentricite des conjectures, et le ton de la discussion, cette theorie (de M. Fergusson) soit de
celles qu’on ne refute pas.” 1 I am unwilling he should be in a position to accuse me of a
similar discourtesy ; I have, consequently, examined his theories with care, and have stated
with sufficient fulness, but firmly and respectfully, my reasons for considering that his views
do not correctly represent the facts of the case, and for rejecting the conclusions he draws
from them as erroneous, and as confusing, instead of explaining, the true history of the
buildings in the Haram ash Sharif.

1 Les Eglises de la Terre Sainte, p. 119.

NOTE.

Since the sheets of this work were printed off, I have been induced, from reading
Dr. Schliemann’s ‘ Mycenae ’ (pp. 43 et seqq.), to examine with more care than I had
hitherto done the question how the front of the Treasury of Atreus in that city had been
ornamented. The result has been a conviction on my mind that such a placage of marble
as that represented in elevation in plate v. vol. v. of Stuart’s ‘ Antiquities of Athens ’ is quite
inadmissible, and would hardly have ever been accepted, if a section had been published with
it. The decoration above the lintel of the doorway was undoubtedly of bronze, like that of
the interior, and the holes still exist into which the pins were inserted which retained it in
its position. At the same time, it seems certain that it was not a solid screen of bronze ;
for the triangular opening over the doorway, though primarily designed to discharge, to
some extent, the weight of the superstructure from the lintel, is so arranged as to make it
evident that it was intended, also, to be a window, to admit light into the interior. The
triangular part must consequently have been an open trellis — the Bible would call it — of
“ network.” How far the rest was open, how far solid, remains to be determined when there
is leisure to work out the design. Meanwhile, what I want to point out is that the two
elaborately ornamented semicolumns standing as mere ornaments on each side of the doorway
of this Treasury, and supporting a bronze epithema 20 by 12 feet, and partially, at least,
of open network, approaches more nearly to my idea of the Jachin and Boaz screen of
Solomon’s Temple than anything else in antiquity I know of. There certainly was a dis-
charging arch over the lintel of the doorway of Herod’s Temple, and my impression always
has been that a similar opening existed in Solomon’s, but whether semicircular or triangular
remains to he determined. It appears to me nearly certain that the Jachin and Boaz screen
was practically an ornamental grille or jalousie before that opening.

More of this hereafter ; but meanwhile the conviction is fast growing upon me, that the
materials may actually exist, which will one day enable us to substitute for the rough
diagram, woodcut No. 34, something very much more like the Toran of Solomon’s Temple.

INDEX.

Abd-el-Malek, recognising its site, centres his
mosque on the Altar of the Jewish Temple,
78 ; and builds El Aksa in a.d. 795, 192.

Absalom, Tomb of, originally similar to that of
Zacharias, 142.

Agrippa, fortifications of, occupied a portion
of the east side of the Haram area, 41 ;
requested by the Jews to rebuild Solomon’s
Porch, 72.

Aksa, El, mosque, the greatest of those of the
first century of the Hegira, 2 ; intended
to be a reproduction of the Temple, 10 ;
double gates under, part of Herod’s Stoa
Basilica, 78 ; and, probably, the same as the
Huldah of the Talmud, ib.; centred by the
Mahomedans on the “ Lapis Pertusus ” of
the Jews. 124; the building of, probably the
chief cause of the clearing away the ruins
of the Temple, 192 ; all the pillars in, later
than the time of Justinian, 208 ; view in
the interior of, 208 ; has still many pillars
and capitals in it belonging to the age of
Justinian, ib. ; as a building, bad in design,
and weak in proportion and details, 209 ;
later than Santa Sophia, or the Dome of the
Pock, 211 ; supposed by the Crusaders to be
the “ Templum Salomonis,” and made the
residence of the Knights, who were hence
called “ Templars,” 226 ; view of Theodoricus
with regard to, 227 ; plan of, 250 ; capital of
pillar from, as drawn by Arundale, 289.

Alijah, the, or upper room of the Temple, one
of its most important parts, 128 ; perhaps
the coenaculum of the priests, who served the
Temple, 134; or the meeting-place of the
Great Synagogue, 135; entrance to, probably
from the Court of the Men of Israel, 13(5.

Altar and Holy of Holies, positions of, not
changed in the Temples subsequent to that
of Solomon, 34; but absolutely fixed, by a
line through the centre of the Huldah Gate,
103 ; base of, 32 cubits square and 1 cubit

high, 121 ; plan and elevation of, ib. ; the horns
of, according to Ezekiel, four in number,
1 22 ; said to have been constructed of un-
hewn stone, ib. ; the total height of, in
Solomon’s Temple, 10 cubits, ib. ; said to
have been enlarged after the return from
the CaptivRy, 123; had two openings, “like
nostrils,” at its south-west angle, ib. ; the
cornerstone of, or “ Lapis Pertusus,” the Sakhra
of the Jews and Saracens, 184; different
character of, in the times of Solomon and
Herod respectively, 225.

Ambrogio, Sant’, the apse and gallery of this
church almost the only parts remaining of
its original construction, 203 ; mosaic in,
with representation of the original building,
204.

Angeli, Santi, circular church of, similar in plan
and arrangement with the Dome of the
Rock, and of the fourth century, 199.

Antonelli, Cavaliere, remarkable work by, at
Turin, 147, note.

Antonia, the name given by Herod to the
castle of Baris, rebuilt by him, 64 ; its posi-
tion, 120 ; discovery by Major Wilson of an
arch and vaulted chambers belonging to, 600
feet from south-west angle of Haram area,
172; plan of, described by Josephus, 173;
tower of, at its south-east angle, inside the
north-west angle of the Temple, 174; two
northern towers, probably one at each end of the
Bazaar, 175 ; arch in the south-western tower
of, resembling that of the Gate of the Prophet,
ib. ; admitted, generally, to have been the
Prsetorium of the Romans, 180 ; its south-
eastern tower, the keep, ib. ; could not be
attacked by Titus till he had carried the
second wall, ib. ; considered also by the
Bordeaux Pilgrim and Innominatus I. as the
residence of Pilate, 276.

Antoninus Martyrus, account by, of his visit to
Jerusalem in a.d. 570, 186.

296

INDEX.

Araunah, the threshing-floor of, means now
available for fixing its site, 35 ; certainly not
where placed by Captain Warren, 36 ; position
of Temple behind it, and of the II ouse of the
Cedars of Lebanon in front of it, fixed by that
of the Altar, 52.

Architects, Jewish, failed to make the “ Mountain
of the House ” a perfect figure, 99 ; strong
predilection of, for even numbers, 104.

Architectural forms, in true style, change slowly,
170.

Architecture, the argument from, entirely reliable,
while, on the other hand, mosaics are easily
forged, 220.

Architecture, Jewish, a characteristic of, that the
Inner and most sacred part of the Temple
should be a perfectly regular figure, 99.

Arculfus, the last Christian author who refers
to Solomon’s Temple, 192; plan by, of the
four churches in the Haram area, 240 ;
Avith note of the spot where Abraham pre-
pared to sacrifice Isaac, 241 ; impossibility of
reconciling his statements, on the idea that
these sacred buildings were in the present
town, 242.

Asmonean kings, palace of, above the Xystus,
84.

Athaliah, Queen, slain “ by the king’s house,”
outside the Horse Gate, 49.

Atreus, Treasury of, 294.

Baalzamin, Temple of, at Siah, names of Herod
and of the early Agrippas inscribed on, 1 40 ;
most likely a copy of that of Jerusalem, ib. ;
bases of the columns of, really inverted
capitals, like that of the monolith at the
Huldali Gateway, 141 ; details of the fat^ade
of, ib.

Barah, El, capital from, shoAvs the denaturalisa-
tion of the true Corinthian style, 286.

Barclay’s Gateway, section of, north and south,

86.

Bethesda, Pool of, section of masonry lining it,
282.

Bethlehem, mosaics in church executed by the
order of Manuel Comnenus Porphyrogenitus,
a.d. 1145-1180, 219.

Beth-Mokadh, importance of, and names of differ-
ent rooms in, 113 ; diagram explanatory of, ib.

Bible, the first and most important witness for
restoration of Solomon’s Temple, 7 ; with
Josephus’s paraphrase, the only witness for
the restoration of the Tabernacle, ib.

Bordeaux Pilgrim, evidence of, that the ruins of
the Temple were clearly determinable when he
visited Jerusalem, in the time of Constantine,
183.

Bosrah, plan of the cathedral of, 205 ; a copy,
on a someAvhat smaller scale, of the Dome
of the Eock, ib. ; section of the dome of,
206.

Buddhists and Essenes, much resemblance in the
tenets and practices of, 135.

Capitals, convex, invented in the time of Justi-
nian, 211.

Catlierwood, Mr. (Avith Messrs. Arundale and
Bonomi), spend six Aveeks in 1833, in drawing
buildings in the Haram, 4.

Chain, Dome of the, near the Dome of the Eock,
supposed to be the sepulchre of our Lord’s
brother, St. James, 227.

Chel, name given to platform surrounding inner
Temple, 92 ; considered by the Eabbis to in-
clude the Court of the Women as well as the
most sacred parts of the Temple, 101.

Chel, with its Soreg, probable extent of, 100.

Chorazin, ruined niche in the synagogue at, 168.

Christians, their motive for calling the Avestern
hill, Zion, 58.

Chrysostom, St., his views as to the meaning of
Christ’s prophecy of the destruction of the
Temple, 182.

Column, truncated, found by Captain Warren
under the Antonia, 176; perhaps, that at
which Christ was scourged, 177.

Constantine, uncertain how far he utilised the
materials of the Temple for his new buildings,
184; practically the first Christian builder,
203 ; plan of Baptistery of, at Eome, 216 ;
Basilica of, destroyed by El-IIakim in a.d.
1009, 222 ; double aisles of, like those in
the contemporary churches of San Lorenzo
Outside the Walls, and of Sant’ Agnese, at
Eome, 236 ; probably constructed a portico to
hide the Temple area from the sacred pre-
cincts of the Christians, 237 ; Eusebius’ state-
ment as to the position of its atrium, 238 ;
which it is now certain could not have been
joined to the Golden Gateway, ib.

Constantine’s buildings at Jerusalem, general
emplacement of, 238.

Cordova, mosque at, of Abd-el-Eahman (a.d.
786-796), the nearest, architecturally, to El
Aksa, 202.

Corinthian order, resemblance betAveen that of

INDEX.

297

Lysicrates’ monument at Athens and the
capitals of Diocletian at Spalatro, 170; modi-
fications in, by the architects of the time of
Diocletian, 210.

Crucifixion, summary of the evidence with refer-
ence to, 242, 243 ; witnessed, probably, by the
priests from the roof of the northern cloister
of the Temple, 243 ; place of, obviously, but
a short distance from the Prastorium, ib. ;
and on ground not walled in, till thirteen
years later, by Herod Agrippa, 244.

Cubit, two forms of, used by the Jews, 15 ;
actual length of, determined by Ordnance
Survey, 16.

Cyprus, coin of, on which a temple of Venus,
with a pylon like that from Sanchi, 152.

Cyril, speculation by, how Christ’s prophecy of
the destruction of the Temple will be fulfilled,
183.

Cyrus, edict of, for the restoration of the Temple,
based on documents preserved in the record
chamber at Ecbatana, 30.

David, citadel built by, probably represented in
later times by the fortresses of Baris and
Antonia, 45.

David, palace of, on a lower level than the
Temple, and not on the same spot as that of
Solomon, 48.

David, sepulchre of, said to have been robbed by
Hyrcanus and Herod, and, therefore, at that
time, well known, 56 ; transferred, in Christian
times, to the western hill, which was, at the
same period, rechristened Zion, 57.

De Saulcy mistakes the sarcophagus found by
him in the Herodium for one of those of the
early kings of Judah, 162.

Diocletian’s palace at Spalatro, court in, 210.

Dome of the Bock, see Bock, Dome of.

East and West, early communications between,
much more frequent and minute than gener-
ally suspected, 160.

Eliashib, the high-priest, probable position of his
house, 45.

Entablature, classical, for a thousand years before
Constantine, had invariably consisted of three
chief parts, the architrave, frieze, and cornice,
231.

Eusebius, narrative of, with reference to the build-
ings of Constantine at Jerusalem, 236, 237.

Eutychius, reference by, to the state of the Haram
area in his times, 188.

Ezekiel protests against the burial of the kings
close to the Temple, 55 ; Temple of, a pro-
phetical description embodying what he re-
membered of the old Temple, 59 ; probably
intended to adhere as nearly as possible to
the dimensions of Solomon’s Temple, 60 ; size,
farther details, and diagram plan of, 61, 62 ;
points wherein the Temple of his vision and
that of Solomon differed, 64.

Ezra reads the Law to the people in front of the
Water Gate, 46.

Ezra and Esdras, specifications in, the same as
those in the Book of Kings, 66.

Fleury, G. B. de, excellent work by, on the
Lateran Baptistery, 217, note.

Ganneau, M. Clermont, inscription found by,
with the same Greek letters on it which are
mentioned by Josephus, 100.

Gate, Barclay’s, or that of Burak, the one whence
Mahomet is said to have ascended from
Jerusalem to Paradise, 85.

Gate, the central, called, by mistake, that of the
Women, 114.

Gate, outer, inference from its ornamentation
what that of the Temple must have been,

91.

Gates, probably ten, to the inner Temple, with
the Court of the Women, 108.

Gates, the Tadi or Teri, placed by the Rabbis,
it would seem, opposite the Gate Huldah,
87.

Gateway, the Double, or Huldah, probably iden-
tical with the Water Gate of the Temple, 35.

Gazith, the name of the chamber in which the
Sanhedrim sat, 110.

Gentiles, Court of, character of the columns m,
81 ; three double gateways leading from, into
the inner court on the south, 99.

Gilding, extent to which used, on the roof of the
Temple, 146.

Golden Gateway, of the same style of art as
the Dome of the Bock, 195 ; not a fortified
city gate, though placed in the city wall, ib. ;
no doubt the festal portal erected by Con-
stantine in front of his Basilica, 229 ; one
of the least altered buildings in Jerusalem,
ib. ; west face and interior of, 230, 231 ;
erected in an age of transition, when pagan
art was dying and Christian scarcely born,
231 ; arch and other buildings at Mylasa in
Caria have much resemblance to, 232 ;

2 Q

298

INDEX.

capital and entablature of the interior of, ib. ;
the free-standing pillars of, boldly and origin-
ally Byzantine, 233 ; difference of level be-
tween it and the Dome of the Bock as much
as 50 feet, 234 ; direct statement of Euse-
bius that it was erected by Constantine, ib. ;
age or origin of, according to Count de
Vogue, 285, whose plates, in his ‘ Syrie Cen-
trale,’ sufficiently determine its architectural
sequence, 286 ; in style greatly resembles
the works of Diocletian at Spalatro, 288 ; its
two monolithic door-posts without any archi-
tectural moulding, 288 ; no ornamentation
found on it like that of the Huldah Gateway,
291.

Golgotha, Church of, belongs to the same group
as the Dome of the Bock and the Basilica of
Constantine, 238 ; church of, as described by
Arculfus, the monk Bernhard, and Anto-
ninus, 239, 240 ; the rock of, still honey-
combed by cisterns, as noticed by Antoninus
in the sixth century, 239 ; the so-called rock
(in the city) has no cisterns under it, nor any
outflow towards Siloam, 240.

Gospels, prophecy in, of the utter destruction of
the Temple literally fulfilled, 78.

Hadrian, said to have converted the Temple into
one for Jupiter, 183.

Haram area, of the highest religious and archi-
tectural interest, 1 ; site of the successive
Temples of Solomon and Herod, ib. ; and the
spot where David built his Altar on the
threshing-floor of Araunah, ib. ; magnificence
of the buildings erected on, by Constantine
and Justinian, 2 ; careful drawings of remain-
ing structures of, by Messrs. Catherwood,
Bonomi, and Arundale, 4 ; map of, from Mr.
Catherwood’s survey published in 1861, 4,
note; and, for the Ordnance Survey in 1868,
by Major Wilson, B.E., 5 ; various opinions
with reference to buildings on, by de Vogue,
Bev. G. Williams, Dr. Bobinson, Messrs.
Tobler, Bosen, Thrupp, and Lewin, ib. ; value
of the survey of, in 1864-5, 11; imaginary
contours of, as proposed by Captain Warren,
35 ; the south-eastern angle of, represents the
“ great tower that lieth out ” by the wall of
Ophel, 42 ; general agreement as to some parts
of the Haram area, 73, 74; southern wall of,
one of the walls of the Temple terrace, 74 ;
diagram of the vaults in its south-east angle,
7 5 ; the south-west angle of, the only one a

true rectangle, 78 ; several Corinthian columns
still standing in, perhaps those of Herod’s
Stoas, 88 ; western wall of, possibly, the eastern
wall of Antonia, 175; proved by Captain
Warren to have foundations 84 feet below
the present surface, 176 ; diagram expla-
natory of the probable arrangement of Jus-
tinian’s buildings, 249.

Hall, Masonic, so called, under the Antonia, cer-
tainly, one of its prison cells, 177.

Hecatseus of Abdera, important passage in, 7 ;
most of his statements confirmed by inde-
pendent testimony, 67.

Heifer, Bed, bridge so named, that connecting the
Temple and the Mount of Olives, 88 ; with an
outlet through the Shushan Gate, ib.

Helena of Adiabene, tomb of, probably in con-
struction like that of Zacharias, 162.

Herod, burial of, confused accounts in Josephus,
161 ; palace of, as also that of the Asmonean
princes and of Agrippa, in the city of Jeru-
salem, to the west of the Temple, 40 ; in his
rebuildings, probably did not trench on the
sacred ground of the old Temple, 47.

Herod’s “ Stoa Basilica,” position of, well ascer-
tained, 7 5 ; the vestibule or principal entrance
to the Temple, 83.

Herod’s Temple, only an enlarged copy of
Solomon’s, 31 ; difference of its area and of
that built by Zerubbabel after the return
from the Captivity, 68 ; like Solomon’s, with
its Altar on the threshing-floor of Araunah,
71 ; twice the size of that in Ezekiel’s vision,
74; character of the pillars in the cloisters
of, 81 ; Stoa Basilica, comparable in magni-
tude with York Minster, 83 ; architecture
of, can be estimated from the still extant
vestibule, 89 ; total dimensions of, east and
west, north and south, 94 ; western court
of, on new ground made by Herod, 105 ;
no admission allowed to the people from the
northern side, ib. ; northern facade, with
single gates, inferior to the southern, 115 ;
general plan of, 125 ; magnificent flight of
stairs leading to, ib. ; height of the whole
structure according to the Rabbis, 132 ; spikes
on ridge and cornices of, 136 ; door of, as
described in the Middotli, 148 ; pinnacle of,
where Satan placed Christ, 150; vine-bearing
toran in front of, 155; plan for the arrange-
ment of the pomegranates on, 159 ; looked on
as accursed by the Christians, owing to the
malediction of Christ, 182 and 246 ; many

INDEX.

299

remains of, probably in existence till the
Saracens built El Aksa, and might have been
there still, like those of Baalbek, had Jeru-
salem not been always inhabited, 182 ; services
of, arranged by the council of fourteen,
Appendix I. 268, note.

Herod, Tomb of, like that of St. James in the
valley of Jehoshaphat, of debased Eoman
Doric, 162; its ornamentation like that of
the roof of the vestibule of the Huldah
Gate, ib. ; portion of the lid from sarcophagus
of, now at Paris, 163.

Herodium (sometimes called “ the Tombs of the
Kings ”), the most remarkable group of tombs
north of Jerusalem, 161 ; the Jebel Fureides
also so called, ib.

Hezekiah, stopped “ the upper watercourse of
Gihon, and brought it straight down to the
west side of the city of David,” 53.

Hiram, the two bronze pillars set up by, not of
the size stated, 157.

Holy of Holies, the, not altered when the Temple
was rebuilt, 124.

Holy Place, the, had no fittings for any liturgical
purposes, 134.

Horse Gate (now known as the Triple Gateway),
the position of, nearly as certain as that of
the Water Gate, 47 ; inclined plane to, pro-
bably like that to be seen on the monuments
from Khorsabad, ib.

Huldah, the, another name for the Double Gate-
way, probably the Water Gate of the Temple,
35.

“ Innominatus I.,” description of the Holy Places,
Appendix IV. 274, 275.

Inscription, Arabic, supposed by Professor Palmer
and Count de Vogue to fix the date of the
Dome of the Rock, 216; and attributed by
them to Abd-el-Malek, a.d. 691, ib.

Inscription, Kufic, there also, noticed by William
of Tyre, but now lost, as are also the Latin
inscriptions minutely described by John of
Wurzburg and Theodoricus in a.d. 1180,
220.

Israel, southern Court of the Men of, tabulated
dimensions of, 99.

“ Itinerarium Burdigala Hierusalem usque,”
passages from the, Appendix IV. 273, 274.

James, St., Tomb of, in the valley of Jehoshaphat,
143 ; no reason why he should have been
buried near the Dome of the Rock, though

said to have fallen from a pinnacle of the
Temple, 228 ; elsewhere stated to have been
buried in the valley of Jehoshaphat, ib.

Jehoshaphat, position of tombs in the valley of,
144 ; made to face the Temple, as far as pos-
sible, ib. ; and certainly in some way connected
with it, 145 ; so-called Tomb of, probably
a rock-cut viliara or monastery, 164.

Jerusalem, walls on the north side determined by
the account in the 3rd chapter of Nelierniah,
53 ; probably left wholly desolate till the time
of Hadrian, 182 ; would have supplanted
Mecca had the Jews accepted Mahomet, 189;
from Constantine to Justinian a prosperous
Christian see, 233.

Jews, especial reverence of, for the stones sup-
porting Holy of Holies and Altai-, 184.

Josephus, value of his testimony with regard to
the Temple, 7 ; inclined to exaggeration with
the view of exalting his people in the eyes of
their Roman conquerors, 7 ; but would not
have dared to falsify the plan of the Temple,
8; probably wrote with a plan of Jerusalem
before him, ib. ; ascribes to Solomon the build-
ing of all the outer courts, ib.; asserts that
Herod’s Temple was twice the size of that of
Solomon, 9 ; sometimes uses cubits for feet,
16; assumed that Herod’s Temple was iden-
tical with Solomon’s, 66 ; always consistent in
stating that the Temple area was a square of
600 feet each way, 72 ; slight variation
between the dimensions given by, and those
of the Ordnance map, 77 ; minute description
by, of Herod’s Stoa Basilica, 80 ; states that the
city of J erusalem lay over against the Temple,
like a theatre, 83 ; does not notice any external
gateway on the north side of the Temple, 87 ;
or the width of the hypaethral part of the
Court of the Gentiles, 92 ; testimony of, to the
size of the single cloisters of the inner courts,
98 ; distinct statement of with reference to
the steps leading to the gates, 107 ; while, at
the same Jimc, exaggerating their size, 109;
not to be relied on for the height of the
Temple, 130 ; certainly considered the Antonia
as part of the Temple, 179.

Judges, the so-called Tombs of the, anterior to
the destruction by Titus, 163; doorway of
Tombs of the, 164.

Julian, unsuccessful attempt of, to restore the
Temple, 185 ; but chief work therein probably
the clearing away of the ruins, ib. ; a fragment
of his restoratioh still attached externally

300

INDEX.

to the Huldah Gate, ib. ; failure of, a subject
of exultation to the Christians of his day, 186.

Justinian, erects his Mary Church on the pre-
sumed site of the palace of Solomon, 51 ;
position of the “weak vaults” of, 75; his
reason for placing his Church of St. Mary
at the south-east angle of the Haram area,
197 ; architecture of, totally distinct from
that of Constantine, 211; church of, still in
existence when the monk Bernhard visited
Jerusalem in a.d. 870, 292.

Kaaba, veneration of the Arabs for, like that of
the Jews for the Temple, 2.

Kefr Beiriin, doorway of the synagogue at,
167 ; probably much like that of the Temple,
ib.

Kerazeh, niche heads in synagogue at, resembling
the ornaments in the roof of the vestibule of
the Gate Huldah, 167.

Khorsabad, city gateways, plan of, 62.

Kidron, probably a ravine, as well as the greater
valley, 69 ; as suggested by Lewin and Sandie,
217.

Kings, Tombs of, their site not directly recorded
anywhere, 56.

Kitchener, Lieutenant, excellent photographs
by, of the Dome of the Bock and the mosque
El Aksa, 209, note.

Kub’r ul Mulk, the name given to the tombs of
the Herodian family, 56.

“ Lapis Pertusus,” noticed by the Bordeaux
Pilgrim, 184; its importance in the service
of the Altar, ib. ; afterwards the Sakhra of
Omar, and the Altar stone of the Crusaders,
191.

Lateran Baptistery, section of, 217 ; an exact
miniature copy of the Dome of the Rock, ib. ;
certainly commenced by Constantine, though
perhaps finished by St. Sixtus, a.d. 431-440, ib.

Lecomte, M., careful drawings by, of the galleries
over the Dome of the Bock, 207.

Liglitfoot, Dr., views of, with regard to the gates
or chambers of the Temple, 106, 107 ; good
suggestion of, with reference to the position of
the Temple — guard chamber, 111 ; correct in
supposing the Court of the Women the same
as the Treasury mentioned in the New
Testament, 119; states that the Treasuries
of the Temple were of a twofold nature and
capacity, ib.

Lorenzo, San, Church of, at Milan, of the fourth

century, with galleries like those of San Am-
brogio and of the Dome of the Bock, 240.

Maccabeus, Judas, copper coin of, 163.

Mahomedan historians knew where the Jewish
Altar was, and that the Temple was to the
east of it, 10.

Mahomet, legend of his ascent to Paradise
shows that the Mahomedans knew the site
of the Holy of Holies, 85.

Mary Church of Justinian, apparently not placed
on a previously sacred site, 242 ; important
as marking the introduction of Mariolatry,
244 ; admitted on all hands to have been on
the southern part of the Haram area, 245 ;
wrongly placed by Count de Vogue within
the area of the Temple, 246 ; detailed ac-
count in Procopius of the building of, 247 ;
probably stood on solid ground east and
west, with external colonnades on all sides,
except the east, 248 ; roof most likely
wholly of wood, ib. ; in size scarcely more
than half the extent of Herod’s Temple, 251 ;
tradition recorded by Antoninus (a.d. 570)
that this was the site of the Preetorium and
of Solomon’s Porch, ib. ; some arches and
supporting piers still visible, ib.

Mashita, Persian palace at, compartment of western
octagon, 169 ; motivo of the principal decora-
tions of, ib.

Moriah, Mount, the scene of Abraham’s intended
sacrifice of Isaac, hence always connected in
tradition with the Altar of David, 241.

Mosaics, difficulty of judging of their age, 207.

Mountain of the House, name given by the Babbis
to the outer court of the Temple, 92.

Mousmieh, apse in the Prsetorium at, resembles,
in decoration, parts of the Gate Huldah, 168.

Nazaro, San, Church of, at Milan, built a.d. 382,
with galleries like those of the Dome of the
Bock, 204.

Nimroud, Birs, small chambers behind, have
some resemblance to those round Solomon’s
Temple, 31.

Nitzus, Gate of, called also the Gate of Jeconiah,
114; the guard-room of the priests near it,
ib.; the most western of the gates, 115.

North wall, distance from, to the centre of the
Altar, according to the corrected Talmudic
measurements, 97.

Offering, Gate of, its position and name, 114.

INDEX.

301

Omar, conquest of Jerusalem by, a.h. 636, 187 ;
reception of, by the Patriarch Sophronius on
entering the city, ib. ; probability that he
entered the Temple area through the Huldah
Gate, 188.

Omar, Mosque of, sufficient for the wants of the
Arabs in the first century of the Hegira, 189.

Ordnance Survey, general defect of, that no
dimensions are figured, 11 ; invaluable for the
restoration of the platform of the Temple, 76.

Palmer, E. H., translation by, of Kufic inscrip-
tion on the inside of the Dome of the Pock,
Appendix II. 269, 270.

Palmyra, temple of the sun at, like in its arrange-
ments to the Temple at Jerusalem, 82.

Passage, underground and secret, from the city
to the Temple, 177 ; probably constructed by
Herod for himself, 178.

Persepolis, great flight of steps up to, only half the
height of that to the “ house of the Lord,” 49 ;
many architectural forms derived from, appli-
cable for the restoration of the Temple, 171.

Petra, character of the works at, 147.

Pharaoh, daughter of, house built for, by Solomon,
44, 45.

Philoxenus, cistern of (at Constantinople), capital
from, 204 ; closely resembles those in the
gallery of the Dome of the Pock, 205.

Pomegranates, the ornament of the toran in Solo-
mon’s Temple, as the vine in that of Herod, 159.

Pompey attacked the Temple built after the
Captivity, but not Herod’s Temple, which was
erected subsequently, 68 ; takes advantage of
a Jewish Sabbath to fill up the northern ditch
of the Temple, ib.

Posca, i. e. vinegar and water, the ordinary drink
of Roman soldiers, and, hence, administered
by them to our Saviour on the cross, 243.

Procopius describes with great detail the church
built by Justinian, 10 ; general notice by, of
Justinian’s buildings at Jerusalem, 41, trans-
lation of passages referring to, Appendix III.
p. 271.

Prudentius, A., passage from, relating to the
Beautiful Gate of the Temple, 186.

Pabbis make the measures of Josephus and of
the Talmud the same, 15 ; endeavour to
reconcile the account of Ezekiel with that of
Herod, 59 ; give every dimension of the inner
Temple with the greatest minuteness, 92 ; but
afford no aid for the dimensions of the outer

court, ib. ; tabulated dimensions of the Temple
courts, as given by, 95 ; their account of the
chambers of the Temple not clear, 107;
yet correct in their details of the size of the
different gates, 108 ; many difficulties in their
account of the room in which the San-
hedrim sat, 110 ; consider the Temple and the
Altar as one and indivisible, 118; make the
back of the Temple as lofty as the front, 131 ;
are aware that the roof of the Temple was
not flat, 137 ; minute specifications by, for
storing the utensils used in the sacred service
of the Temple, 149.

Religion, the Christian, like the Mahomedan,
based upon the Jewish, 3.

Robinson, Dr., arch of, value of the measures
calculated from, 79 ; possibly that connecting
the Temple with the city, 83 ; his opinion
with reference to the position of the Golden
Gateway, 196.

Rock-cut tombs round Jerusalem, tympana of,
nearly approach the form of an equilateral
triangle, 164.

Rock, Dome of, great cavern under, not unlikely
the sepulchre of the kings from David to
Hezekiah, 56 ; the more so as much re-
sembling the cave of Machpelah at Hebron,
57 ; later than Diocletian’s octagonal “ Temple
of Jupiter” at Spalatro, 194; architecturally
two or three centuries older than El Aksa, ib. ;
buildings like this, in Christian countries,
usually called baptisteries, ib. ; the build-
ings over it certainly of the age of Con-
stantine, 195 ; long anterior to San Vitale, at
Ravenna, a.d. 547, ib. ; doubtless, therefore,
the church Constantine erected over what he
believed to be the Sepulchre of Christ, 198 ;
valuable discoveries made during its repair,
in 1873, 199 ; arcade of, described by John
of Wurzburg, really the front of a covered
gallery, ib. ; elevation and section of the
flank of, 200 ; no resemblance whatever be-
tween it and El Aksa, 202 ; M. Ganneau
states that some of the arcades of, had once
been formed into semicircular niches, 206 ;
view in the aisle of, 208 ; all the capitals in,
of the Corinthian order and much older
than Justinian, ib. ; as a tomb, one of the
most satisfactory in the world, 209 ; bronze
plaque from, with ornaments like those in the
frescos from the Catacombs or in the mosaics
of the tomb of Santa Costanza, 213 ; and like,
too, those on the lid of Herod’s sarcophagus,

302

INDEX.

213, note; capital and entablature of the
intermediate range of pillars of, 213 ; the latter,
moreover, not resembling anything found
in any Mahomedan building, 214 ; capital
and cornice of the intermediate range of
columns in, not earlier than a.d. 300, nor after
a.d. 500, 215 ; not borrowed from any other
churches between the times of Omar and Abd-
el-Malek, 216 ; the bases of the pillars of, as
classical as their capitals, ib. ; Theodoricus
claims it as the Temple of “Our Lord” from
the band of mosaics under roof, 220 ; which
were destroyed by El-Hakim, but replaced by
Dhaher in a.d. 1027, 222 ; possible reasons
why ascribed to Al-Mamun by the Saracens
in their inscription, ib. ; but this un-
intelligible, if supposed to refer to Abd-
el-Malek or Al-Mamun, 223 ; the Crusaders,
in their treatment of it, were unconsciously
rehabilitating the Temple of the Jews, 226;
discovery that it was really built by Con-
stantine explains many things in the narra-
tive of the Evangelists, 244 ; the beauty of,
compared with the poverty of El Aksa,
strong evidence of its earlier construction,
257 ; beautiful windows of Persian stained
glass placed there in the sixteenth century,
ib. ; has been very little altered internally,
ib. ; comparable with the Taj-Mahal, and one or
two of the great Indian sepulchres, ib. ; gene-
ral character well shown in De Vogue’s work,
and in the drawings of Karl Haag and Karl
Werner, ib. ; capital from, as drawn by De
Vogue, 289.

Roofs, pyramidal, not uncommon in Syria, in
Herod’s time, 146.

Sakhra, cave under Dome of Rock, hole in the
top of, similar in position to that at Hebron,
57 ; Mahomedan stories about, unintelligible,
189; but support the tradition that Mahomet
ascended thence to heaven, 225 ; nowhere
stated in Mahomedan writings to be the
Altar of the Jewish Temple, 225.

Sanchi, northern gateway of the Tope at, 135 ;
the four torans at, belong to the first century
of our era, 160.

Santa Sophia, capitals of, 212.

Saracens, in the first century of the Hegira,
entirely dependent for their buildings on
Byzantine architects, 255.

Sepulchre, Church of the Holy, tombs known to
exist under its western boundary wall, 55 ;

transferred from the eastern to the western
hill (like Zion and the Tomb of David) after
fourth century a.d., 258 ; the present so-called
church (in the city) not only a forgery, but
destitute of any beauty of design or detail,
259.

Shewbread, the Chamber of, probably on the
eastern side of the inner court of the Temple,
112.

Siah, in the Hauran, temple of Baalzamin at, 140.

Solomon, palace of, shown by recent researches
to have stood at the south-east corner of the
Haram area, 40 ; burnt at the time of the
Babylonian captivity, and not since clearly
traceable, 51.

Solomon, sepulchre of, still pointed out, and re-
corded on the Ordnance Survey, 57.

Solomon’s Temple, Bible account of, remarkable
for its minuteness of detail, 2 ; special reasons
for the veneration shown towards it by the
Jews, ib. ; remarkable for the beauty of its
carvings in cedar wood, ib. ; prophecy of its
entire destruction literally fulfilled, ib. ; diffi-
culty of its restorers, that they did not know
what belonged to Solomon and what to Herod,
ib. ; still less anything of the localities, or of
Syrian architecture in the time of Solomon, 4 ;
general belief that it stood within the Haram-
ash-Sherif, ib. ; table of the principal di-
mensions of, 16; allowing for certain neces-
sary modifications, the same as the Tabernacle,
26 ; plan of, with section, ib. ; evidently
possessed an upper room, 30 ; its Tabernacle
not of Egyptian origin, 33 ; though, with its
great propylon, may have resembled an
Egyptian temple, ib. ; the pillars, however,
called Jachin and Boaz, were not obelisks
of bronze, ib. ; but, being in metal, must have
had forms appropriate to that substance,
34; all the elements of, found also in the
Temples of Ezekiel and Herod, ib. ; account in
Book of Chronicles shows that its measures
were supposed to be double those of the
Tabernacle, ib.; arrangements of the buildings
and objects of the courts around, 37 ; site
of the Altar of, determinable from the re-
mains of Herod’s Temple, ib. ; outer court of,
100 cubits square, 38 ; general principles of
its construction, 43 ; the Water Gate of, de-
terminable with the greatest accuracy, 46 ;
its height very uncertain, 130 ; diagram ex-
planatory of the screen supported by the
Pillars of Jachin and Boaz in, 157 ; frontis-

INDEX.

303

piece for, set up by Hiram, probably of two
bronze pillars 12 to 14 cubits apart, 158.

Sopbronius, tbe patriarch, address by, to the
khalif Omar, 187.

Soreg, a marble screen outside the Chel, richly
carved, 100.

St. John Studios, Church of, at Constantinople,
capitals like those in Dome of the Bock from,
a.d. 416, 216; retains the three parts of the
entablature as in classical times, 233.

Stoa Basilica of Herod, plan section of, with en-
closure of the inner Temple, 80; pillars of,
one cubit more in diameter than those of the
northern and other porches, 93.

Synagogues of Northern Syria, value of their re-
mains for the restoration of the Temple, 164;
analogy between their supposed upper rooms
and the upper room of the Temple, 166.

Syria, many fragments of architecture in, enabling
us to realise the style of Herod’s Temple, 170.

Tabernacle, the original, essentially the same at
all times, however much modified, 18 ; was, in
fact, a tent, with a ridge and sloping sides,
20 ; the movable temple of the nation, ib. ;
and, as such, accompanied the Israelites in all
their wanderings, ib. ; its general plan, 21 ;
so fully described in Exodus and Josephus
that it can be easily restored, ib. ; every
dimension of, either 5 cubits or a multiple of
that measure, 23 ; view of, 24 ; dimensions of
the court of, given in the Bible precisely, ib. ;
the Jews, throughout all ages, considered its
dimensions as divinely revealed to Moses, 25 ;
and these, therefore, are the foundation of
all we know of subsequent Temples, ib. ; yet,
as a tent, scarcely in itself an architectural
object, ib. ; Solomon, however, accepted it as
his model, ib. ; verandah of, becomes, in the
Temple, a series of small chambers of three
storeys, 27 ; no notice of constructive details
to he found anywhere, 28.

Talmud, the Jerusalem, compiled in second and
third centuries a.d., the Babylonian, in the
fourth or fifth, 9 ; compilers of, never exag-
gerate or misrepresent such facts as they
have, ib.; had, probably, measurements handed
down from father to son, ib. ; doubtful if any
of them ever saw even the ruins of the
Temple, ib. ; usually confine their measure-
ments to the inner courts, which Herod was
not allowed to enter, 10 ; and ignore tbe
additions made by him, ib. ; at the same time

fancying that their measurements must co-
incide with those of Ezekiel, ib. ; were not
aware that the courts of Solomon’s Temple
were double those of the Tabernacle, 96.

Tell Hum, synagogue of, plan by Major Wilson,
165 ; upper room above the ruins of, probably
the ceremonial or meeting-room, ib.

Testament, New, indications in, of small import-
ance for the topography of the Temple, 7.

Thessalonica, arcade from the Church of Deme-
trius at, a.d. 500-520, 211.

Titus erects two banks against northern face of
the Antonia, and two against the correspond-
ing face of the Temple, 180.

Tombs of the Kings of Israel, their position
depends on the interpretation of the 3rd chap-
ter of Nehemiah, 53 ; ten of them buried on
the eastern hill, or Mount Zion, 55 ; the later
kings buried in the city, but not in the
tombs of their forefathers, 55.

Tombs, classical, existing near Jerusalem, not
earlier than Herod nor later than Titus, 161 ;
none erected by the Saracens in the first and
second centuries of the Hegira, 202.

Toran, or screen, in the same place both in Herod’s
and in Solomon’s Temple, 33 ; in Herod’s
Temple what Jachin and Boaz were in Solo-
mon’s, 96 ; Japanese, sketch of a, 126, note ;
detailed notices of, 151-160 ; the oldest exam-
ple in the East about 200 years before Herod,
at Bharhut, 160 ; at Sanchi and Amravati,
probably of wooden origin, ib.

Tourmanim, fa9ade of the church at, 139.

Transference of Sepulchre from eastern to western
hill, 258.

Treasury of Atreus, 294.

Vaults, the, to the east of the Triple Gateway,
those erected by Justinian to support , his
buildings, 10.

Veneering walls with marble, a common practice
of the Bomans in their thermae, and other
secular buildings, 202 ; as also in later times
at Santa Sophia in Constantinople, 203.

Vestibule of southern entrance of Herod’s
Temple, capital of, 89 ; domes of, much
damaged by fire in Titus’s time, 90.

Vestibule of the Gate Huldah, quadrant of one
of the domes, 90; that under El Aksa, the
only remains of Herod’s Temple, 91 ; one
quadrant of the dome of, still remaining, ib. ;
interesting as an early specimen of the pen-
dentive dome, ib.

304

INDEX.

Viharas, the Buddhist, probably more like the
Jewish Temples in their arrangements than
any other buildings, 135.

Vine of gold spread over the gateway of the
Temple, 152 ; presented to Pompey by Aristo-
bulus, 156.

Vogue, Count M. de, notice by, of square build-
ings in Syria surmounted by circular domes,
92, note ; admits that the Golden Gateway
was built by Christians between the fourth
and sixth centuries, 195; misled in his
judgment of the mosaics in the Dome of the
Eock by the Arabic inscriptions, 218 ; faithful
drawings by, of those in the church at Beth-
lehem, 219 ; plan of Temple area as restored
by, Appendix V. 278; three principal views of,
selected for discussion, 27 9 ; assigns J osephus’
measurements to Solomon’s instead of Herod’s
Temple, 279; view as to the position and
dimensions of Herod’s Temple, ib. ; places his
Temple in the northern part of his parallelo-
gram, 280 ; calculations by, with reference to
the measures given by Josephus, 281 ; sup-
poses the Birket Israel a ditch to protect the
northern face of the Temple, 282 ; dimensions
of Herod’s Temple according to, 283 ; identifies
the mosque El Aksa with Justinian’s church,
290.

Warren, Captain, value of excavations by, as
showing that the south-east angle of the
Haram area was one of the angles of Solomon’s
palace, 41 ; discoveries of, with reference to
Dr. Eobinson’s arch, 83 ; and of a terrace wall
50 feet in front of the Golden Gateway, 196;
and, further, that the floor of the Basilica was
30 feet below that of the upper platform, 234 ;
section of vaults discovered by, north of plat-
form of Dome of Eock, 235 ; in all probability
those of the double aisles of Constantine’s
Basilica, ib. ; theory of, that the Jewish cubit
was 21 inches, and that Josephus meant cubits
when he wrote feet, 281.

Water Gate, position of, certain from local indica-
tions, 108.

Well of the Leaf, position of, under the colonnade
of the inner Temple, 108.

Williams, Eev. George, translation by, of a para-
graph in Procopius’ ‘ De /Edificiis,’ Appendix
III. 271, 272.

Willis, the late Professor, erroneous inference by,
from a passage in Eusebius, about the Golden
Gateway, 196.

Wilson, Major, E.E., accurate map of the Haram
area made by, for the Ordnance Survey in
1868, 5 ; short notice by, of the synagogues
of Tell Hum, 164 ; arch of, and adjoining
chambers, section of, east and west, 177.

Winds, Tower of the, at Athens, capital from,
89.

Women’s Court, in Herod’s time, a partition taken
from the outer or less sacred portions of the
Temple, 101 ; tabulated measurements of,
102 ; not concentric with the Temple Court,
118 ; inner gate of, called the Beautiful, 119 ;
the scene of most of the events of the New
Testament, ib.

Wurzburg, John of, his testimony to the position
of the Altar in the Temple, 191 ; points out,
in a.d. 1170, what was then supposed to be
the “ Beautiful Gate ” of the Temple, 287.

Zach arias, Tomb of, in the valley of Jehoshaphat,
142.

Zerubbabel, Temple of, not so lofty as that of
Solomon, but with facade of the same height
and width, viz. 60 cubits, 125.

Zion, or eastern hill, identity of, with the city of
David, quite certain, 54 ; and certainly the
same as the Temple hill, down to the time
of the Maccabees, ib. ; the site, also, of the
sepulchres of David and of his successors, ib. ;
changed from the eastern to the western hill
subsequently to the fourth century a.d., in
order to separate Christian from Jewish tra-
ditions, ib.

LONDON : PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET AND CHARING CROSS.

Plate 1.

SOLOMON S BUILDINGS IN THE HARAM AREA. Punted over the Ordnance Survey

F 0 R T R

Plate 11

Joj Jftrgusson. Tnv'

HEROD'S TEMPLE ! CROUND PLAN

GROUND PLAN

SHEWING LOWER PART
OF THE

COURT or™c WOMEN

NOTE. Tlio figured dimensions ore given in Cubits

John Mio

JOJbemarlB Street .

■

Plate 111.

HERODS TEMPLE *. EAST ELEVATION

J(LS H’eT'fpLSSOTl Ttlv ^

John Murray, ALbemaj'Je SP

OPT

Plate lV:

t c ■ t v v \ s' v iiw< s v» v v \ vmvmmww

HEROD’S TEMPLE

«] LONG1: SECTION

S. ELEVATION [-

■

ray,

John- JAur-,

JJJb em-a-rle Street.

Plate Y.

r- &

Plate "VII.

BIRKET ISRAEL

i I Wj

MENS* U ON Eft

AT RIUM

GOLOEf

^ALTABIS

ABRAHAM

'^OTHfrn

EASTERN |
GATEWAY

pO*T*

^POUTF’

OFTHE

ANTONIA

\ p L AC E

II ARAM AREA,

SHOWING THE

Jewish, Christian &: Mahomed an

Buildings .

Jewish/. . . jBuzLoUrtgs Black/

Chrwtzany ff i^5/

Mo}uvraeJ/ijv„ ,, Bluue,

PLATE VIII.

Ur Old, Moped J | [

r'>riia

PLAN OF SOUTHERN PART OF HARAM AREA.
REDUCTION OF THE ORDNANCE SURVEY SHOWING CISTERNS AND VAULTS.

SAME SCALE AS PLATE II.

_ f

...

Jf- 0 t? o r
1]

p-e? m m> fa

P O 6 4

1 o a o Ip2^

r-psl _ J_

=0:

MURRAY. ALBEMARLE

This book should be returned to
the Library on or before the last date
stamped below.

A fine of five cents a day is incurred
by retaining it beyond the specified
time.

Please return promptly.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The temples of the Jews and the other buildings in the Haram area at Jerusalem"

See other formats